Noam Chomsky, the renowned philosopher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said:

Let's stop calling it "Artificial Intelligence" and call it what it is and does: plagiarism software, which doesn't create anything, but copies existing works by existing artists, altering them just enough to escape copyright laws.

This is the largest intellectual property theft ever recorded.

Hello. I hope you are having a nice day.

That's a very fair and important question, and I’d like to share my opinion on it.

Personally, I believe the use of the term “artificial intelligence” can indeed lead to confusion, especially when the systems we call “intelligent” are actually just complex mathematical models—things like artificial neural networks, matrices, and algorithmic patterns.

Even if the outputs (like writing a paper or solving a problem) appear intelligent, there’s no understanding or consciousness behind them. So in that sense, calling it “intelligence” might be too generous, or at least imprecise. It’s not intelligence in the human or even animal sense. What we really have are machines that follow statistical patterns and probability—not actual reasoning or awareness.

I respect concerns about plagiarism too. Generative models do recombine existing information, and while they don’t directly copy, they also don’t create in the same way a human does. That’s why critical thinking and human oversight remain essential.

So, while the question is whether the term “artificial” is appropriate, I believe the real issue lies in calling it “intelligence.” What’s artificial is the system itself, but referring to its functions as intelligence is more of a linguistic shortcut than a literal or accurate description. In the end, we’re still dealing with code, numbers, and data—not real minds.

I hope this help. Thanks

Dear Juan-Esteban Palomar Tarancon ,

So, while the question is whether the term “artificial” is appropriate, I believe the real issue lies in calling it “intelligence.” What's artificial is the system itself, but referring to its functions as intelligence is more of a linguistic shortcut than a literal or accurate description.

https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/3176/what-are-good-alternatives-to-the-expression-artificial-intelligence

Regards,

Shafagat

This question invites us to reconsider not only the semantics of AI, but also the ontological assumptions embedded in our technological imaginaries. In my recent essay, The Economy of Vibrations and the Violin of Society, I explore how intelligence—whether human, artificial, or collective—functions less as a static attribute and more as a dynamic resonance within complex systems.

Rather than viewing “artificial intelligence” as a contradiction in terms, we might ask: what kind of intelligence emerges from algorithmic architectures? What forms of meaning, memory, and adaptation are made possible through non-human cognition?

In a world shaped by overlapping crises, I argue that we need to move beyond binary distinctions (natural/artificial, human/machine) and toward a symbolic ecology of intelligence—distributed, resonant, and co-constructed.