[mysterymath]

There's an old saying: "Yesterday's AI is today's algorithm". Few would consider A* search for route-planning or Alpha-Beta pruning for game playing to be "Capital A Captial I" today, but they absolutely were back at their inception. Heck, the various modern elaborations on A* are mostly still published in a journal of AI (AAAI).

[Teleoflexuous]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect We got it named already, it just needs to be properly propagated until there's no value left in calling things 'AI'.

[mrbombastic]

This is a fair point and maybe someone more well versed can correct me but pretty much all state of the art image recognition is trained neural networks nowadays right? A* is still something a human can reasonably code, it seems to me that there is a legitimate distinction between these types of things nowadays.

[bitwize]

Apparently there was a big scare that AI would take programmers' jobs away... decades ago, when the first compilers came out.

[6510]

Yes, no more machine code. Everything was to be written in BASIC. ...how we laughed at that outlandish idea. It was so obvious performance would be... well... what we have today pretty much.

[level1ten]

We will likely develop more accurate names for the different shades of AI after the fact. Or the AI will.

[singpolyma3]

A* is definitely AI... Why would someone say it isn't?

[callalex]

As a data point in my early 2010s computer science bachelor program it was taught to me as the A* algorithm.