> In the face of current hype around LLMs and 'fear of AI', calling a Random Forest Classifier 'AI' is a bit... far
Just because the state of art evolved doesn't mean we have to erase history of the field. This is a ML algorithm so calling it AI is perfectly in line.
The fear you mention is built on the lack of understanding of what ML is. Showing that some AI has "dumb" yet useful implementations can help show the limits of this category of technology.
Lol the wikipedia article of RFs is literally quoted to be "Part of a series on Machine learning and data mining" yet you have MLDevSecBullshitOPs-type experts here schooling you on what consists AI or not.
Just because the state of art evolved doesn't mean we have to erase history of the field. This is a ML algorithm so calling it AI is perfectly in line.
The fear you mention is built on the lack of understanding of what ML is. Showing that some AI has "dumb" yet useful implementations can help show the limits of this category of technology.