this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
698 points (99.2% liked)
People Twitter
8883 readers
723 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In this case, a simple chatbot like she interacted with falls under AI. AI companies have marketed AI as synonymous with genAI and especially transformer models like GPTs. However, AI as a field is split into two types: machine learning and non-machine-learning (traditional algorithms).
Where the latter starts gets kind of fuzzy, but think algorithms with hard-coded rules like traditional chess engines, video game NPCs, and simple rules-based chatbots. There's no training data; a human is sitting down and manually programming the AI's response to every input.
By an AI chatbot, she'd be referring to something like a large language model (LLM) – usually a GPT. That's specifically a generative pretrained transformer – a type of transformer which is a deep learning model which is a subset of machine learning which is a type of AI (you don't really need to know exactly what that means right now). By not needing hard-coded rules and instead being a highly parallelized and massive model trained on a gargantuan corpus of text data, it'll be vastly better at its job of mimicking human behavior than a simple chatbot in 99.9% of cases.
TL;DR: What she's seeing here technically is AI, just a very primitive form of an entirely different type that's apparently super shitty at its job.