[kaik]

SMT, SAT, etc are absolutely AI. In fact, Machine Learning is just another field inside AI (albeit a famous and successful one). As someone that got his PhD doing his research in "classical" AI, it's surprising that nowadays most people think that AI is just machine learning.

[zero_k]

+1. I am always surprised that they used to do (and of course still must do) proper full-on formal verification of e.g. train track scheduling systems, so train accidents, and consequently 100s of deaths don't just happen because "sorry for the bug, ver 1.2 fixes it" -- but people are happy to sit into a Tesla going at 120km/h and allow a well-tested, but not formally verified deep learning system to make decisions. BTW, I know it's not formally verified, because formally verifying deep learning systems is a currently very much unsolved problem for anything but toy examples.

[srikz]

I completely agree.

Hot take: If SMT, SAT are too simple to be given the coveted badge of AI, then Machine learning should be called as glorified curve-fitting?

I feel that everyone is amazed by the results provided by the good examples of Machine Learning, as only those get popular. The spectacular failures and completely absurd results which reveal that ML is not having any semantic understanding of the problem are completely glossed over.

[smabie]

Is linear regression AI? How about logistic regression? Many people would consider the latter to be ML/AI while the former statistics.

Ultimately, I think the distinction is pretty meaningless.