> You wouldn't say [a pocket calculator can calculate better and faster than humans]
Would. ("Better" is legitimate for "more precisely".)
In fact, to an inquiry, not only «An AI can see and understand what it sees. It can identify and detect» can be read through usual duly interpretation of text as a typical imprecision for «An AI can see and "understand" what it sees: it can identify and detect» (the full stop stands for a colon), where rhetoric 'understand' is explained immediately after, but also the term "understand" is not that necessarily bound to Intelligence: it means "to have entered into a relation, to create a relation" (that 'under-' is a case of 'inter-'), hence "to approach" - "understand" is generally legitimate for progressive (for only progressive) definition of a concept. The use of "understand" for Intelligence must be some elision of "properly, duly understand", proportionally to what is achievable to a human. Which also implies that a more limited entity can "understand" to the best of its nature.
This noted: little problem as per the «barcode», since «it's still very clear».
Surely, if _some_ «people seem to intentionally blur this line», we can censor them.
But surely again, the formulation «whereas AI people seem to intentionally blur this line» is just plain offensive, and the addition «to get headlines and attention» is well over offensive. You have to add the quantifier, "whereas _some_ AI people" - otherwise typicality (beyond statistics: qualification) is implied.
Would. ("Better" is legitimate for "more precisely".)
In fact, to an inquiry, not only «An AI can see and understand what it sees. It can identify and detect» can be read through usual duly interpretation of text as a typical imprecision for «An AI can see and "understand" what it sees: it can identify and detect» (the full stop stands for a colon), where rhetoric 'understand' is explained immediately after, but also the term "understand" is not that necessarily bound to Intelligence: it means "to have entered into a relation, to create a relation" (that 'under-' is a case of 'inter-'), hence "to approach" - "understand" is generally legitimate for progressive (for only progressive) definition of a concept. The use of "understand" for Intelligence must be some elision of "properly, duly understand", proportionally to what is achievable to a human. Which also implies that a more limited entity can "understand" to the best of its nature.
This noted: little problem as per the «barcode», since «it's still very clear».
Surely, if _some_ «people seem to intentionally blur this line», we can censor them.
But surely again, the formulation «whereas AI people seem to intentionally blur this line» is just plain offensive, and the addition «to get headlines and attention» is well over offensive. You have to add the quantifier, "whereas _some_ AI people" - otherwise typicality (beyond statistics: qualification) is implied.