I wish that was the case for me. Unfortunately, even when I get internal emails about AI in science events at best it’s unclear. But often it’s generative AI. At this point I’m kinda just forced to assume it means genAI unless stated otherwise.
Though I guess part of that is that most research groups will specify the kind of machine learning they use. So if it’s left as AI then it’s usually generative.
Outside of that though it is true that (as seen in OP) most news articles will just label any model as AI, diluting the term entirely. And it’s probably a neural network if it’s from a reputable research group (such as in this case: a University of Cambridge group running actual human trials).
I wish that was the case for me. Unfortunately, even when I get internal emails about AI in science events at best it’s unclear. But often it’s generative AI. At this point I’m kinda just forced to assume it means genAI unless stated otherwise.
Though I guess part of that is that most research groups will specify the kind of machine learning they use. So if it’s left as AI then it’s usually generative.
Outside of that though it is true that (as seen in OP) most news articles will just label any model as AI, diluting the term entirely. And it’s probably a neural network if it’s from a reputable research group (such as in this case: a University of Cambridge group running actual human trials).