>You're not some kind of authority on how terms should be used Yes, I agree I'm not and I previously said, "I was making a descriptive and not prescriptive sta

>You're not some kind of authority on how terms should be used Yes, I agree I'm not and I previously said, "I was making a descriptive and not prescriptive statement." If you're not familiar with descriptive-vs-prescriptive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem >to admonish the other user to use it in the way you like. To be clear, I didn't admonish him. I thought he misunderstood how _others_ were (mis)using the "AI" term. I didn't disagree with the OP about "AI" and did not instruct him to use it differently. >It is common in the lay press to describe systems created by AI researchers as "AI" or "AIs" and it's even more common to refer to deep learning reserach synechdochically as "AI", or "machine learning", but those are terminological mistakes that are to be expected When you write, "It is common in the lay press to describe systems created ..." you just restated the same descriptive-vs-prescriptive explanation I did. And yes! Others we don't control keep repeating "terminological mistakes" as you call it. That's my point and you're restating it in different words. I just happened to use the word "downgraded" instead of "terminological mistakes". Maybe there's a language barrier and it's that particular word that bothers you? >Researchers in the field, of course, don't ever call their work "AI"! Exactly! So now we must hold two contradictory facts (not opinions) in our head: (1) academic researchers don't call their work "AI" (2) ~2 billion search results for the term "AI" of which most usage are "terminological mistakes" : https://www.google.com/search?q=%22AI%22+software https://www.google.com/search?q=%22AI%22+software So the reality is that we still have 2 billion pages using "AI" that didn't obey any authority such as academic researchers telling them how to use it. Now what? I guess we can complain, "I wish 2 billion webpages didn't slap "AI" on everything!" Has that changed anything? Was that complaint about others' language (mis)usage productive to the discussion? In my opinion, I don't think so. As analogy, if you insist that peanuts/cashews/almonds correct definition is "legumes" and not "nuts" -- you still have to simultaneously hold another contradictory definition in your head to understand that others are still referring to those as "nuts". Descriptive-vs-Prescriptive. EDIT reply to: >"So we agree that 'the label "AI" (naked with no modifiers) has already been downgraded to "weak AI"' is just your opinion, correct?" You're playing argument games trying to trap me in "my opinion" instead of noticing that you said the same thing I did. No it's not my opinion; it's a factual observation of what people are doing. It's also not my opinion that you explained what the world does as "terminological mistakes" -- a factual observation -- which was a restatement of what I already said. This means we're going around in circles. In any case, I would like to ask you why you think academic researchers in AI field don't call their work "AI"?