News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by zoomablemind on Saturday July 31, 2021 @01:36PM (#28020111)
In not so long past, there was another popular expression - "computer-aided ...", which was quite fit for the practical use (like CAD for design, CAT for translation etc)

Perhaps, CAI for inference or insight would express it more fairly.

Alternatively, AI could've stood for 'automated inference', but sure it's all too late to rebrand.

We humans still not clear about nature of our own intelligence, yet already claimed being able to manufacture it.

Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by skohan on Saturday July 31, 2021 @03:21PM (#28020876)
I think inference isn't the right term either. I think current ML is more like automated inductive reasoning.
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by aidenn0 on Saturday July 31, 2021 @04:57PM (#28021484)
Automated inductive reasoning sounds a lot like artificial intelligence to me...
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by skohan on Saturday July 31, 2021 @05:35PM (#28021760)
Idk maybe it's semantics, inference to me sounds more like a logical leap is happening, whereas in my mind the simplest form of inductive reasoning is just expecting a pattern to repeat itself.
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by aidenn0 on Saturday July 31, 2021 @07:44PM (#28022423)
Expecting a pattern to repeat itself may not be sufficient to count as intelligence, but general purpose pattern recognition certainly seems to fit the bill.
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by bississippi on Saturday July 31, 2021 @09:01PM (#28022815)
Computer Aided Pattern Recognition sounds reasonable in setting public expectations.
Re:Past Performance is Not Indicative of Future Results (2020) by aidenn0 on Sunday August 01, 2021 @09:36PM (#28032016)
I think you're right if you eliminate the word "aided"