your argument is still curricular, ‘it’s is what it is because it is called that’ you have complete ignored the context of the complaint and the reason.

by retreating to an overbroad definition of AI coined by deceptive marketing to attach computer chess to the science fiction concept of a thinking machine that achieves agency and conception, for money, you have forfeited the point that llm’s are glorified auto complete.

i would not be so crass as to argue that llms are just glorified auto correct as a truth, but an LLM is not capable of agency, and is not capable of true understanding, it is a clever design of tokenizing data and assigning connections of these data points. but that is not agency nor understanding, and it does generate its responses using similar tools to auto complete governed by these connections.

you took a posters flippant disdain for LLM’s and ignored his actual point in its misclassification as a means to trick people into thinking it’s akin to magic personhood. and when called out you resorted to claiming you are technically right because an active flow chart can be called an AI.

you can’t have it both ways