> My point is, you can basically use the term AI to justify virtually anything when it comes to the value of software, which just makes articles like this not v

> My point is, you can basically use the term AI to justify virtually anything when it comes to the value of software, which just makes articles like this not valuable at all. The article has SOME value!!!! E.g., a nice list of what can go wrong! I won't defend the article or AI, but the article did at least hint at what it meant by "AI" -- training from data or some such. Or, one might say, large scale empirical curve fitting justified from its performance on the test data (there are some questions here, too, i.e., maybe some missing assumptions). So, it appears that the article was relatively focused on what it regarded as "AI" and did not fall for the hype practice of calling nearly any software (from statistics, applied probability, optimization, simulation, etc.) AI. Uh, is the prediction of the motions of the planets and moons in our solar system from differential equations and Newton's laws "AI"? How about other applications of calculus, e.g., a little viral growth model y'(t) = k y(t) (b - y(t)) Is that "AI"? I'd say no, but then want other work called AI should not be?