Except AI is very much changing how things are done as well as what computers do. Image recognition, natural language processing, self piloted vehicles, these are all novel applications for machines which carry significant real world risks to life and property.

Moreover, AI in it's current state is a complex black box with unpredictable outputs for given inputs, which may be chaotic - see, for example, adversarial attacks. If we want a better handle on, say, regularizing outputs in a predictable way, or at least a clearer window into the occluded complexity of neural network decision making, a whole new field may very well be warranted. There's a reason we are calling these program outputs behaviors now; it's a new type of loosely -deterministic computing until we develop a deeper understanding which will not be trivial.

Obviously none of these are AI and I don't see how you're helping anything by insinuating they are.

That implies any meaningful definition to begin with. That is entirely an illusion and people are using this to mislead investors (not that I'll ever shed a tear for them).

Arguing about definitions is easily one of the least relevant parts of any discussion so I'll leave it here. I just wish AI topics didn't always have someone say it wasn't "real AI".

Real-world usage would imply people use it in a meaningful way. I have yet to see any evidence of this.