It's technically correct, but AI has become such an overloaded term that it's impossible to know it refers to "the use of neural networks" without explicitly saying so. So you know, maybe just say that?
This debate is a classic. AI has always been an overloaded term and more of a marketing signifier than anything else.
The rule of thumb is, historically, "something is AI while it doesn't work". Originally, techniques like A* search were regarded as AI; they definitely wouldn't be now. Information retrieval, similarly. "Machine learning", as a brand, was an effort to get statistical techniques (like neural networks, though at the time it was more "linear regression and random forests") out from under the AI stigma; AI was "the thing that doesn't work".
But we're culturally optimistic about AI's prospects again, so all the machine learning work is merrily being rebranded as AI. The wheel will turn again, eventually.
... and once it works, it "earns" a name of its own, at least among people actually doing it. Even in 2024 there are Machine Learning Conferences of note.
ICLR, ICML, KDD, ICCV, ECCV and NeurIPS are all major "AI" conferences and none of them has AI in the name. NeurIPS comes closest. "AI" has historically not been a useful distinction for anyone in the field.
I actually think this is changing given the current rapid ascent of multimodal models.
