Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, it's a bit late here so I don't really have time to fully refute your sophisticated argument. But let me ask you this: if AI is not curve fitting, what is it then?
I'm objecting to the implication that if we start referring to it as curve fitting rather than AI, then thinking about it becomes easier and it becomes less likely that we will make a huge collective mistake in thinking about it. I'm not saying there aren't a few possible mistakes that do become less likely if we switch to "curve fitting, but I suspect that it does not matter much either way on the most serious mista…
Let's say a company creates an automated system based on a curve fitting algorithm. Then things go wrong. Now it is quite easy to say the company is responsible for any damage and must pay for the rectification.
When we say an AI is deployed and things go wrong, we have a sci-fi movie and responsibility is somehow magically moved away from the company that deployed the algorithm.
To me it feels that "AI" as a term is a clever marketing term that companies will use to deflect responsibility. And I think it is one of the reasons why Open AI, Musk and others pushed this AI safety non-sense.
The aim of calling it "curve fitting" or something similar would be to take the magic out of it so the broader public doesn't get confused. I think that's worthwhile.