When is it OK to call AI . . AI?

IMAGE CREDIT | Phani Marupaka on MEDIUM

I REALLY don’t think we should be draconian on it. Because that can get ‘goalpost moving’-ish.

To me it’s OK to call it AI if ANY of the below apply:

A usable checklist of levels & types of AI

1. Feels at face value like a human did it, it’s cool, even if it’s pretty simple (simple symbolic AI code, like the ELIZA psychoanalyst bot from the 1960s, or Siri-like AI parsing or enterprise semantic search)
2. Feels like it probably has learned from seeing a lot of training data or doing ‘brute force’ looking ahead that a human would be hard-pressed to absorb or achieve the prediction accurately at all (ML AI & chess bot AI)
3. Upon reflection it feels like really smart code & coded logic did it and it’s pretty flexible (extensive symbolic AI like CYC or really good customer service bot rule-based AI)
4. Seems to really understand me well or draws amazing pictures (deep learning models including GPT-3, the NLU AI LLM & DALLE-2)
5. Feels like a human did it and its really flexible ( = AGI)
6. Feels like beyond human general intelligence ( = superintelligent AI)
7. Feels like it’s taking over the world ( = AI Singularity)

Where are we now?