Phrase from "The Pariah and the Messiah:" " Because it holds Israel to a higher standard than Hamas, because Israel has always held itself to a higher standard." Substituting "the U.S." for "Israel" and just about any place else for "Hamas," could this explain the U.S.'s current predicament with respect to trump?
I am surprised that Dave Pell, of all people, continues to capitalize the a and the i in artificial intelligence. Even the autocorrect function on my phone changed my lower case a and I to capitals three times before I was able to manually override it.
Would we write "Computer Program" or "Algorithm" in a sentence? We seem to have accepted the absurd notion that a computer program has life and awareness apart from the code and human input which invokes its behavior. In my first paragraph above, if I had typed " Autocorrect Function on my Phone...", would that have been grammatically acceptable?
We capitalize the first letters in a name or a proper noun; that confers a degree of recognition of status that is useful to facilitate communication. The computer programs that are our tools need no such recognition.
To accept the now apparently ubiquitous notion that "ai" should be "AI" is to surrender one's uniqueness to a state of mediocrity.
"AI" is capitalized because it's an abbreviation for the proper noun "Artificial Intelligence," a specific field of study and technology, and abbreviations for proper nouns are typically capitalized. Writing it as "ai" would make it a lowercase word, which is incorrect for this term and would be a grammatical error.
To me, capitalizing the ai implies one regards the digital programming assembled by computer programmers as having individuality and the status of a self-aware entity (if I may use that term thusly).
If one refers to the field of digital programming devoted to creating the synthetic intelligence that you refer to as AI, then I concede your point.
But to refer to any digital product and give it a name, such as "Claude" or (to me the greatest offense so far) "Grok" is misleading and compromises the integrity and essence of human understanding - especially so because this is being promoted for profit. Doing so to recoup one's development costs would be bad enough; but doing it to amass huge financial gain is offensive in the extreme - to me, anyway.
I think it's primarily a matter of us looking at it from different perspectives. That is, I responded strictly from a (current) grammatical perspective based on the definition of "artificial intelligence," as a specific field of study and technology, while I feel you're responding from a broader, in-the-current-world (to coin a term) approach. That is, something we haven't dealt with previously; i.e. ramifications involving it possibly having life and awareness, a “self-aware entity,” as you put it, apart from the code and human input, and are having to cope with this concept for the first time.
My feeling is giving different programs a name is an attempt by those commercial interests behind it to get us to accept it as having the most human-like answers. I grok your exasperation at the misappropriation of that word by the companies using it.
Without getting into the possibility of it reaching that state, which personally I don’t think it can, I’m not going to argue over whether or whether not it should be capitalized. I feel Dave was following the currently accepted practice. Whether or not that will need to be changed in the future remains to be seen.
I love the irony of Trump accusing people of mortgage fraud. On the other hand, no one knows more about mortgage fraud than Trump.
Phrase from "The Pariah and the Messiah:" " Because it holds Israel to a higher standard than Hamas, because Israel has always held itself to a higher standard." Substituting "the U.S." for "Israel" and just about any place else for "Hamas," could this explain the U.S.'s current predicament with respect to trump?
I am surprised that Dave Pell, of all people, continues to capitalize the a and the i in artificial intelligence. Even the autocorrect function on my phone changed my lower case a and I to capitals three times before I was able to manually override it.
Would we write "Computer Program" or "Algorithm" in a sentence? We seem to have accepted the absurd notion that a computer program has life and awareness apart from the code and human input which invokes its behavior. In my first paragraph above, if I had typed " Autocorrect Function on my Phone...", would that have been grammatically acceptable?
We capitalize the first letters in a name or a proper noun; that confers a degree of recognition of status that is useful to facilitate communication. The computer programs that are our tools need no such recognition.
To accept the now apparently ubiquitous notion that "ai" should be "AI" is to surrender one's uniqueness to a state of mediocrity.
"AI" is capitalized because it's an abbreviation for the proper noun "Artificial Intelligence," a specific field of study and technology, and abbreviations for proper nouns are typically capitalized. Writing it as "ai" would make it a lowercase word, which is incorrect for this term and would be a grammatical error.
To me, capitalizing the ai implies one regards the digital programming assembled by computer programmers as having individuality and the status of a self-aware entity (if I may use that term thusly).
If one refers to the field of digital programming devoted to creating the synthetic intelligence that you refer to as AI, then I concede your point.
But to refer to any digital product and give it a name, such as "Claude" or (to me the greatest offense so far) "Grok" is misleading and compromises the integrity and essence of human understanding - especially so because this is being promoted for profit. Doing so to recoup one's development costs would be bad enough; but doing it to amass huge financial gain is offensive in the extreme - to me, anyway.
Be well, be strong, be careful, be kind. Peace.
I think it's primarily a matter of us looking at it from different perspectives. That is, I responded strictly from a (current) grammatical perspective based on the definition of "artificial intelligence," as a specific field of study and technology, while I feel you're responding from a broader, in-the-current-world (to coin a term) approach. That is, something we haven't dealt with previously; i.e. ramifications involving it possibly having life and awareness, a “self-aware entity,” as you put it, apart from the code and human input, and are having to cope with this concept for the first time.
My feeling is giving different programs a name is an attempt by those commercial interests behind it to get us to accept it as having the most human-like answers. I grok your exasperation at the misappropriation of that word by the companies using it.
Without getting into the possibility of it reaching that state, which personally I don’t think it can, I’m not going to argue over whether or whether not it should be capitalized. I feel Dave was following the currently accepted practice. Whether or not that will need to be changed in the future remains to be seen.