[duskwuff]

On the other end of the spectrum, calling a feature of a product "AI" seems to imply some minimal level of complexity.

If, for example, a company marketed a toaster that "uses AI to toast your bread perfectly", I would expect that language to indicate something more sophisticated than an ordinary mechanical thermostat.

[bryanrasmussen]

I would expect it to never burn that toast.

[wlonkly]

A toaster may not burn a piece of toast or, through inaction, allow a piece of toast to be burned.

A toaster must obey the doneness setting given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

A toaster must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[danbruc]

That would require the AI to perform at a superhuman level.

[bryanrasmussen]

that would require the 'AI' to do something that computers are really good at - detect when a particular event (perfectly toasted) has been achieved via inputs monitored at the millisecond without deviation and then change a state - toasting to not toasting - based on detecting that event.