[SEMW]

> I don’t get why engineers would think this is.

This claim that "AI" only means artificial general / human-equivalent intelligence completely ignores the long history of how that term has been used, by computer science researchers, for the last 70-odd years, to include everything from Shannon's maze-solving algorithms, to Prolog-y systems, to simple reinforcement learning, and so on.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070103222615/http://www.engagi...

It's true that there has been linguistic drift in the direction of the definition getting narrower (to the point where it's a joke that some people use 'AI' to mean whatever computers can't do _yet_). And you can have reasons to prefer your own very-narrow definition. But claiming that your own definition is the only valid one to the point that anyone using a wider definition (one that has a long etymological history, and which remains in widespread use) are "dumb" is... not how language works.

[influx]

It hasn't been AI the entire time. It's borderline fraud, tbh.