Regulations generally start out by defining the thing they're regulating. You can call it whatever you want, but if it fits the law's definition, it's going to be covered.

Sure, but pretty much all software qualifies as 'AI'. However most people think about Hollywood interpretations of AI, which is a thing that doesn't exist. It's strictly a matter of interpretation, and figuring out where on this spectrum a particular piece of software exists is basically the equivalent of throwing darts at a board.

In my private taxonomy, hello world through Excel are weak AI, the state of the art mostly narrow AI but fast becoming more general, and the endgame is general AI.

What worries me is the 80 year old judges (and other clueless participants of the judicial system) who don't understand how computers work and will ultimately be responsible for deciding people's fate regarding this stuff.