Finding myself disillusioned with the quality of discussion in this sub
\n \t
\n
<\/BR>
\n
\n \t
\n
<\/BR><\/p>\n
I see multiple highly-upvoted comments per day saying things like \u201cLLMs aren\u2019t AI,\u201d demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the technical definitions of these terms. Or worse, comments that say \u201cthis stuff isn\u2019t AI, AI is like *insert sci-fi reference*.\u201d And this is just comments on very high-level topics. If these views are not just being expressed, but are widely upvoted, I can\u2019t help but think this sub is being infiltrated by laypeople without any background in this field and watering down the views of the knowledgeable DS community. I\u2019m wondering if others are feeling this way.<\/p>\n
Edits to address some common replies:<\/p>\n
\nIn the public eye, there is sometimes confusion between the terms \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d and \u201cmachine learning.\u201d Machine learning is a subfield of AI that studies the ability to improve performance based on experience. Some AI systems use machine learning methods to achieve competence, but some do not.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
- My point isn’t that everyone who visits this community should know this information. Newcomers and outsiders should be welcome. Comments such as “LLMs aren\u2019t AI” indicate that people are confidently posting views that directly contradict widely accepted views within the field. If such easily refutable claims are being confidently shared and upvoted, that indicates to me that more nuanced conversations in this community may be driven by confident yet uninformed opinions. None of us are experts in everything, and, when reading about a topic I don’t know much about, I have to trust that others in that conversation are informed. If this community is the blind leading the blind, it is completely worthless.<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n
submitted by \/u\/galactictock <\/a>
[link]<\/a><\/span> [comments]<\/a><\/span>\n<\/div>\n