That not the analogy I see.

Say, not-a-vaccine was falsely attributed with properties "safe" and "effective".

I see people who understand that not-a-vaccine in no way safe and effective, and it does not matter how they call it - vaxx, vaccine, jab, shot, whatever. Main thing - they know that it does not have properties "safe" and "effective".

But somehow same people thinks that not-an-AI somehow could have property of deciding something, property of intelligence, property of having kind of will, and so on.

That is the problem that bothers me, not how that not-an-AI is named.

That not-an-AI thing does not decide anything, does not create anything new, does not have any intelligence, could not uncover anything or have kind of will to do something.

It does not have properties MSM attribute to it. It can't have them in principle.

Just like not-a-vaccine can't be safe and effective in principle.

Why one thing is perfectly clear, and another, exactly same thing somehow is not?

Also interesting, that those who got that not-a-vaccine is not what it was declared to be do a lot of digging and enormous efforts to find a truth about not-a-vaccines. Huge and honorable work, really.

And now, the same people somehow don't even want to find out how that not-an-AI really works and why it just can't have any of advertised properties. And unlike with vaccines nobody ban or hide that information. It is publicly available, unlike vaccine data, you could easily not only read everything about how not-an-AI made, but even build and run your own not-an-AI on your own PC and study how it really works by yourself and find out why everything MSM told about not-an-AI is a complete bullshit, exactly like everything they told about not-a-vaccines.

What is that? How is that? Why is that?

That not the analogy I see.

Say, not-a-vaccine was falsely attributed with properties "safe" and "effective".

I see that people who understand that not-a-vaccine in no way safe and effective, and it does not matter how you call it - vaxx, vaccine, jab, shot, whatever.

But somehow same people thinks that not-an-AI somehow could have property of deciding something, property of intelligence, property of kind of will, and so on.

That is the problem that bothers me, not how that not-an-AI is named.

That not-an-AI thing does not decide anything, does not create anything new, does not have any intelligence, could not uncover anything or have kind of will to do something.

It does not have properties MSM attribute to it. It can't have them in principle.

Just like not-a-vaccine can't be safe and effective in principle.

Why one thing is perfectly clear, and another, exactly same thing somehow is not?

Also interesting, that those who got that not-a-vaccine is not what it was declared to be do a lot of digging and enormous efforts to find a truth about not-a-vaccines. Huge and honorable work, really.

And now, the same people somehow don't even want to find out how that not-an-AI really works and why it just can't have any of advertised properties. And unlike with vaccines nobody ban or hide that information. It is publicly available, unlike vaccine data, you could easily not only read everything about how not-an-AI made, but even build and run your own not-an-AI on your own PC and study how it really works by yourself and find out why everything MSM told about not-an-AI is a complete bullshit, exactly like everything they told about not-a-vaccines.

What is that? How is that? Why is that?