I though you would go down the route of how, despite using AI/ML, most companies revenue really comes from vanilla stuff or they don't really take what models say/predict in account, such as having analytics but ignoring it.

It was quite disappointing to see you went the route of "AI is not AI enough". The route of "I will only respect AGI, all else is something else"

For practical reasons, AI is about solving problems we have no idea how to solve algorithmically. We have no idea how to make chess winning algorithms, but we are pretty well versed on writing algorithms that extensively check all possible moves to find a good one. Why isn't this AI or not AI enough?

We both know the math that drives neural networks, so despite their amazing results, they are just... machine learning?

If you go down this route, anything you can explain is boring, only magical things, like the human brain, are truly intelligent.

For the record, I agree that most "AI companies" are not really AI companies, but not because it is not AGI or because they are not doing some gourmet research. Most AI companies are not really AI companies because AI isn't the main driver for the company, it is more like a add-on.