Ask Lemmy

So "the problem" is you first heard about it in the context of chatbots, so now you want to insist that is the only meaning the phrase has ever represented and everyone else needs to change to accomdoate you.

No, it's a term used in science and engineering to categorize a bunch of algorithms, methods, and models that is being misunderstood by many people in the first place and has existed well before the first chatbots.
Such misconceptions are not unusual, which is often a result of using scientific terminology from a colloquial point of view. Think of the term "theory" for another example.

I'm not saying chatbots are AI, I'm saying the definition that calls them AI is incorrect because grifters just changed it to fit what they were doing, for money.

I disagree with the money part. You are now throwing scIentists and engineers into one pot with those who exploit this term for marketing purposes alone.
But I agree that the "intelligence" part is difficult to justify.

I understand that it is an intuitive choice for labelling methods that can mimick or outperform "natural intelligence" (people, birds, ants, fungi, bacteria, ...) on tasks that involve some form of information processing. The "artificial" part underlines that these methods are usually well... not found in nature (although often inspired from) but manufactured, man-made.

From my point of view the issue really begins at the "intelligence" part. We throw this word around as if it was something unique to humans. Yet, there exists no solid definition of what the fuck 'intellgience' even is. I challenge you to think about an airtight definition of 'intelligence'. If we have a solid definition for that, we can think about how we might carry that over to what we currently call artificial intelligence and may consider relabeling if necessary.

Currently, I lack an alternative. And for that reason I stick with AI as a commonly accepted working label.