no, see, that's my point: you wouldn't call genetically modified grass 'artificial grass'. As you did, you have to qualify it as 'artificially created'. Because

no, see, that's my point: you wouldn't call genetically modified grass 'artificial grass'. As you did, you have to qualify it as 'artificially created'. Because apart from being 'artificially created' it's real grass. Likewise your clone is a real human. So 'artificially created' things are not automatically 'artificial'. They're only 'artificial' if the artifice is still apparent in the end result. If they aren't real. So my point: if we're describing something as 'artificial' intelligence, we should expect it to be a fake substitute for real intelligence, that has been manufactured to serve that purpose. If you said you had 'artificially created intelligence', that is a different - and much bigger - claim than that you have 'created artificial intelligence'. Much like if you said you had 'artificially created life' that is a much bigger claim than that you have 'created artificial life'.