Look you can be pedantic about the language all you want. I'm 100% for preferring saying LLM when you mean LLM.
We're in a thread about AI surveillence.
Note the "I imagine there are a number of similar situations in every country, where the deployment of AI surveillance has a sufficiently measurably positive impact that it becomes popular"
Someone said please don't refer to license plate scanners as AI. One can be obtuse and take that at face value, or one could read it as "please don't lump more deterministic ML together haphazardly by calling them all AI. "
This is what I mean by broad and narrow. You could have said technological surveillence and it had the same effect.
We're only in a thread about AI surveillance because I used the work "AI" when describing the license plate cameras.
Neither the comment I replied to, nor the original article, are particularly about AI in general nor about LLMs specifically. They're about data collection. The "AI" topic is a tangent.
I don't see the difference between "please don't lump more deterministic ML together haphazardly by calling them all AI" and taking what was said at face value. I completely understand the commenter's request that I encode their values into my speech in the way they prefer! I just disagree with them and decline to do so. What you misread as me being obtuse and not "reading" it correctly, is in fact just me saying "no".
It's a trained model, just like Claude.