It seems like your first and second paragraphs express opposite opinions. In the former you seem dismayed by the over-application/overhyping of the term "AI"; in the latter you seem frustrated by the high and ever-increasing bar for categorizing systems as "AI". Am I misinterpreting you?
My comment can be read two ways, and neither way is wrong. I wasn't really expressing an opinion as much as bringing up relevant facts. People label things that we don't know how to do yet "AI". And then when these hard problems are solved, they seem like they are not really "intelligent".
This leads to both overuse and trivialization of the word, but also moving goal posts for the field. And actual progress isn't taken seriously, because nothing feels like intelligence when you understand it.
