Comment by wokwokwok

There's no distinction to me.

AI is hard; edge cases are hard. AI sucks at edge cases.

Between AI for cars and AI for software the long tail of edge cases that have to be catered for is different, yes.

...but I'm sure the same will apply for AI for art (e.g. hands), and AI for (insert domain here).

Obviously no analogy is perfect, but I think you have to really make an effort to look away from reality not to see the glaringly obvious parallels in cars, art, programming, problem solving, robots, etc. where machine learning models struggle with edge cases.

Does the tooling they used matter? no, not at all.

...but if they've claimed to solve the 'edge case problem', they've done something really interesting. If not, they haven't.

So, don't claim to have done something really interesting if you haven't.

You can say "I've been using AI to build a blah blah blah. It's great!" and that's perfectly ok.

You have to go out of your way to say "I've been using an AI to build blah blah blah and I haven't written any of it, it's all generated by AI". <-- kinda attention seeking.

"no lines of code directly written" really? Why did you mention that? You got the AI to write your software for you? That sounds cool! Let's talk! Are you an AI consultant by any chance? (yes, they are). ...but.

No. You didn't. You really didn't. I'm completely happy to call people out for doing that; its not unfair at all.

Too many AI grifters out there.