I agree, and it's probably what the article is about. These terms have meaning for a little while, then they get abused (see your "digital" example), than they

I agree, and it's probably what the article is about. These terms have meaning for a little while, then they get abused (see your "digital" example), than they become meaningless and even sound antiquated. I agree with a lot of the siblings though: "AI" features themselves are so often seemingly just pushed on users, and it doesn't look like they were thought through, well implemented or tested. My main annoyance with this these days is that absolutely every app and device seems to have decided they need to push an "assistant" on me. I personally hate the assistant UX, and I wish I didn't have to close so many banners for apps to leave me alone with that. I get that they're trying to show their investors that their "AI features" get "engagement", but it seems... desperate. Even if they don't call it "AI", but just by the value it supposedly provides (e.g. "assistant"), it still annoys me quite a bit. I wonder how other consumers (especially non-technical people) feel about that part. TFA doesn't really seem to go into it.