[crashedsnow]

I agree the term has become somewhat throw-away, but to be fair any AI system probably IS just ML/DL algorithms. That is, ML/DL are avenues to create AI. I think most people would agree that AlphaGo is an example of AI and was achieved via DL, so by that definition it's just some DL algorithms.

[behnamoh]

>> ...any AI system probably IS just ML/DL algorithms...

I don't think so. ML/DL is just the beginning. Better AI solutions will be discovered in the future. Note that computer neural networks are just simulations of some reality, they're not complete yet. Many intricacies are still to be researched on.

[crashedsnow]

I agree that AI != ML/DL, that's not what I'm saying. Tests like the Turing test don't prescribe anything about implementation. I mean, if you could roll together some Excel macros that passed the test then great. My point is that if you do pull the curtain back on most "AI" systems today, at worst you'll find some sort of basic adaptive learning system and at best you'll find a [deep] neural net that supports both supervised and/or unsupervised learning.

I think the general spirit of the root of this comment thread is valid though. There's a lot of "we're using AI and machine learning!" going on when in fact all they're doing is remembering how frequently you pushed the blue button, then recommending the blue button.

[neurotech1]

I would define AI as an autonomous form of DL. DL is processing an input to provide an output. AI is more like a bot that runs its own process autonomously.

[posterboy]

> AI is more like a bot that runs its own process autonomously.

That is a contradiction. An AI is a process. A process doesn't run itself. At most, it runs.