These absolutely are AI as far as the term has been used for a significant amount of time. There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?

> There is no value in trying to redefine it after, what, 70 years?

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).

People absolutely use it usefully, that it can be used as marketing fluff is a far more recent thing. If it's never been used usefully and isn't now, there's no point arguing about it because that war has been lost and if it has been used usefully redefining it makes no sense.

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".

I'm not really sure what it is you expect to bite me about using a term as almost everyone else has and continues to use it.

Self respect, I guess.

And this folks, is the AI Effect in practice.

Hey, at least I don't sell snake oil.

Are you sure you aren't conflating AGI with AI? If not, could you define AI?

AI is “do you wish you had a slave”. I can’t think of any other definition that fits all the use cases. It’s also more obvious why it’s a snake oil term: slaves are people you can communicate meaningfully with in both directions.

Effective policymaking takes into account both the precise technical terminology and the real-world usage of a concept. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to tackle any issue for which popular usage doesn't take into account technical nuance, leaving those fields in a lawless limbo.

Sure, just make it illegal to say you're selling AI technology. Problem solved. I'm absolutely fine with the use of the term in the context of regulating its abuse.

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