Um.. Sorry if this unsettles anyone else..
OK, so fair warning. I'm going to do this in like super short and let somebody with more time on their hands explain if they wish to. But I'm sure a smart person is going to quickly understand what I'm saying here. If we look at red versus blue and then we consider AI today, it's hard to make a connection at first.. BeCaUse what we really know about the AI that we have created is it's not truly artificial intelligence. It's the simulation of artificial intelligence. We're mimicking what artificial intelligence would look like... right? We haven't ACTUALLY created a form of digital intelligence with wants, and thoughts, and desires. Agreed?
(Dramatic pause)
But hang on a second...
IS that statement really correct? "We haven't really created artificial intelligence, Because what we created it doesn't meet the definition we had previously set... for something that didn't exist.." Hmm. Is it possible that what was actually wrong was our definition of it before?
^(Because I can already see so many people responding with "you're dumb, you don't understand how AI works, let me just stop you right there. These lines right here is going to prove whether or not you read this at all. If so, I'll allow someone else direct you back to this. I fully comprehend as much as anybody can comprehend how LLMs, SLMs, VLMs, MLMs, CLMS, and TLMS work. Essentially, they are sophisticated autocomplete systems that reconstruct the logic and style of human language rather than actually "thinking". K good glad we got that outta the way.)
In other words, if it's how we solve the gap in the artificial intelligence problem of not knowing how to make it to having it in our everyday lives... Then maybe it's the definition that we have wrong of artificial intelligence. Anyways, That a big build up for a much quicker question that is the point here: The bigger question: