TL; DR;

• Using bad analogies to explain things that are already confusing helps no-one
• AI is currently a marketing term used to push LLM's
• Tools used appropriately garner satisfactory results.

people need to specify that they’re against generative LLMs, like Chat-bots or slop-generators, not “all AI”.

I agree, how does throwing out bad comparisons relate to that ?

There was just a thread on Twitter where a company showcased an amazing tool for animators - where you, for example, prepare your walking/sitting/standing animations, but then instead of motion-capturing or manually setting the scene up, you just define two keyframes - the starting and the ending position of the character… and then their AI picks the appropriate animations, merges between them and animates the character walking from one position to the other.

It’s a phenomenal tool for creatives, but because the term “AI” appeared, the company got shat on by random people.

if you are talking about cascadeur or something similar, that doesn't use an LLM afaict, it's based on ML Trained on their own internal data (or so they say).

I don't disagree that tools used in a way that plays to their strength are useful.

People are often conflating AI with LLM's, which makes sense for the average person, because that's how it's been marketed and sold.

LLM's aren't even really AI but here we are.

No. All generative graphical slop AIs and generic chat-bot LLMs have been trained on large corpus of data that has been obtained by various sketchy and illegitimate means.

I was very specific in my wording, but as i said, i could be wrong, if you can point to any big commercial LLM’s that don't adhere to my classification i will concede the point.

THAT’S the major difference.

I mean, yes, that's what i said.

So i stand my my conclusion that in the context you laid out, Photoshop isn't a good comparison to most, if not all of the current tools that would be considered AI.

So, he basically says something that directly contradicts what you’re saying - he prefers the generative slop machines, than tools that actually help developers or artists.

I could be wrong but half of that statement was sarcasm.

I basically read it as:

So I’m gonna execute the code of someone who doesn’t know the first thing about coding on my computer? Great! I’d rather have AI art and human code.

Running code someone vibed up without understanding what it's doing, it stupid If i had to pick one way around or the other, I’d rather have AI art(which is this case is significantly less of a security risk) and human code (which should potentially be of a higher quality)

I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is how the term AI is used.

None of these things are really intelligent and LLM's are predictive semi-hallucination machines cobbling together best guesses at what's supposed to come next in the sequence.

The way i personally see it is that the latest gen "AI" stuff is basically sitting on LLM's in some capacity. Area recognition, language, image/code generation etc.

Anything else is just normal(perhaps smart) tools, using algorithms of some kind, ML etc