I agree to your broad point, but absolutely not in this case. Large Language Models are 100% AI, they're fairly cutting edge in the field, they're based on how human brains work, and even a few of the computer scientists working on them have wondered if this is genuine intelligence.
On the spectrum of scripted behaviour in Doom up to sci-fi depictions of sentient silicon-based minds, I think we're past the halfway point.
I had to check, but the real thing is the Dairy Council and this is a parody account. Obviously it's way more interesting than the real @dairyuk account.
You're claiming that Generative AI isn't AI? Weird claim. It's not AGI, but it's definitely under the umbrella of the term "AI", and at the more advanced end (compared to e.g. video game AI).
This one's obviously fake because of the capitalisation errors and .. but the fact that it's otherwise (kinda) plausible shows how useless AI is turning out to be.
I'm going to tag you in next time I lose the game.
I keep seeing stupid, seemingly very person-specific definitions get the votes, stuff like "John: a really sexy, clever boy that all the girls want to be with"
I liked when the US National Honey Board funded a study that compared honey, cane sugar, and HFCS and found they're all about the same (and all raised a key blood fat, a marker for heart disease).
Of course, the truth is that sugar's sugar and you should have limited amounts of it, but when it's as cheap a HFCS is in the States, they can stick it in everything.
Apart from OP's picture missing the 's on Kelley's, it seems genuine due to the matching inconsistent use of capitalisation.
Seems that this has been asked before, and Wikipedia has gone for inaptronym
I like nominative ironicism or unaptonym.
I thought it was tuna (or other sashimi) with a little fat on it. Either way, that emoji does not convey my reaction at all.
Humans invent stuff (without realising) it to, so I don't think that's enough to disqualify something from being intelligent.
The interesting question is how much of this is due to the training goal basically being "a sufficiently convincing response to satisfy a person" (pretty much the same as on social media) and how much of it is a fundamental flaw in the whole idea.