Now people will judge it and say that it's not AI because it can't do this or that or because it's too specific to a domain. But why would you buy an AI that's as smart as a human in every way and then use it just to predict sales? An AI replicates one part of human intelligence. The AI is a fully functional artificial human. Two completely independent ideas. We haven't had a single AI capable of fully replacing a human in every way, but is that something we really want or need? Or are domain specific AIs good enough?
Anything that takes the repetitive cognitive load off a human and puts it into a specially trained computer is an AI.
This is just watering out the term AI to the point of uselessness and/or ridicule.
I mean, by your definition, the steam-engine and punched-hole-card powered Jaquard looms of the early 17th century are an AI. Of course, those were the precursor to Babbage's general mechanical computer, so they were actually "specially trained computers".
Edit: 19th century, not 17th. "There are two really hard problems in programming: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
Think about the word "artificial" and the word "intelligence". If it used to take a human thinking and reasoning about something to perform a task but now a computer is doing it, that is by its very definition, "artificial intelligence". A steam engine or mechanical loom don't replace human brains, they replace human hands. Which is why I said "cognitive load".
To us it's just a bunch of algorithms on Apache Spark but for our end users it's magic, it's AI.
I read a good explanation of different terminologies of AI here on HN not long time back.