Is this more like That ' s not AGI or Not even narrow AI ? As you probably know , the vast majority of the AI field researchers experts are working on narrow AI that doesn ' t fit your definition . I think it ' s quite reasonable for companies to use the term in the same way that nominal experts do , and to essentially define AI sociologically as whatever comes out of the research field called ' AI '. If AI experts agree that something is AI , we should not put marketing departments at fault for using the term , unless they additionally suggest other falsehoods such as their product being strong AI . If you want to educate the public , I think it ' s better to teach them about the difference between narrowweak and generalstrong AI . Or when people say AI , it doesn ' t mean what you think it means AGI rather than these people are lying about something being AI . No productsservicesetc . currently have AGI in them , and this will likely be true for quite some time to come . And frankly , when something has narrow AI in it , then that does not tell me much . Also in the vein of education , it may be a good idea to add and require submission statements that explain why the technology mentioned in the articles is supposedly not AI .