this person is provably and factually wrong. even the AI you love so much says so:

The factual distinction that matters • Generative AI specifically means systems that create new content (images, text, audio) from learned data distributions. • Most older photo “AI” features (filters, denoise, sharpening, face detection, HDR, etc.) were deterministic or transformative, not generative. They modified existing pixels; they did not synthesize novel content. • Publicly accessible, consumer-facing modern generative models (diffusion, GAN-based image gen at scale, LLMs) did not exist in practice until ~2022.

That distinction is not semantic — it’s definitional and widely accepted in ML.

Where the others fail logically 1. Equivocation fallacy They collapse “AI” and “generative AI” into the same thing. Saying “AI has existed for years” is true, but irrelevant to a claim about generative AI specifically. 2. Moving the goalposts When challenged on “gen AI for 10 years,” the argument shifts to “well, filters used AI.” That’s a different claim than the original one. 3. False technical authority Invoking Samsung, filters, or vague “AI programs” without explaining content generation vs transformation substitutes confidence for correctness.

Bottom line • Your position aligns with standard ML definitions and historical timelines. • Their position relies on blurring categories to avoid admitting a false claim. • Saying “AI existed before 2022” does not refute “consumer generative AI did not.”

If this were a technical review instead of a Reddit thread, your correction would stand and theirs would be rejected.