strongly considering becoming one of those people who insists on never referring to a particular thing by its common name for political reasons because framing big probability models as "artificial intelligence" and pretending they're anything like HAL 9000 or Data is doing so so much damage to laypeople's understanding of a technology that primarily exists to make their lives worse
Strongly agree with this, especially with the current topic of "artificial intelligence"/"machine learning" which is why I was very pleased to learn of the term "statistical learning".
Though the "learning" still implies something more, I think the "statistical" part hits at something so important that it moderates the "learning".
That being said, I'm still very much cautious of us being too certain that human brains are radically different, especially given the absolutely unthinkable reality that this type of statistical learning seems to work at least well enough in the way that we do see images in generated images.
And on the third, secret, hand I feel that getting in depth about the technical details here or even the relationship to art or if it's "real" or not is like focusing on the exact chemistry that makes guns work rather than the fact of who is granted access to guns (oppressors) and what purposes they use them for (oppression), and what necessity is there for those who don't have them (the oppressed) to gain them to be able to counteract their current use (pretty fucking high, sadly).
In conclusion: confused wailing and gnashing of teeth.
