So you are misusing the term yourself : any kind of software is AI, or even any kind of machine. (That's why the term AI is best to be avoided altogether, except maybe in psychology - think "Turing test".)
Artificial neural networks implemented on software/hardware have been around since 1958, though they didn't have much success... maybe except in research and video games (already in 1970s-1980s) ? Most of game AI today *still* is "if-then" statements, as well as countless AI expert systems.
I'd argue the exact opposite of this point: Your point: "(Of course using humans "inside" your machine and claiming it to be "AI" is on a whole other level of "fraud".) - Humans are THE most apt example of "artificial" intelligence - have you seen Congress? Have you met any politicians? But seriously, there's not a single tenet of so-called "Artificial Intelligence" that states that AI cannot be aided, policed, tuned or filtered by humans. Is there anything that says AI must be completely machine-based, with zero human intervention? In all honesty, AI cannot exist without humans and, although it's a nice dream to think of AI as completely autonomous, that is not a realistic expectation. It's like the wonderful Tesla "self-driving car" concept - for now, at least, and for the foreseeable future, the cars are "auto-assist;" meaning you can let them drive in lanes for a bit, but a human must occasionally "make contact with the steering wheel." And the AI concept is no different. Any and all AI results still must be vetted; both now and in the future. Though there may come a day when less vetting is needed; we always should have gatekeepers at some level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
So you are misusing the term yourself : any kind of software is AI, or even any kind of machine. (That's why the term AI is best to be avoided altogether, except maybe in psychology - think "Turing test".)
Artificial neural networks implemented on software/hardware have been around since 1958, though they didn't have much success... maybe except in research and video games (already in 1970s-1980s) ? Most of game AI today *still* is "if-then" statements, as well as countless AI expert systems.
Machine learning is at least as old, and does not necessarily involve neural networks. Its successes are also older than AlphaGo : https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/01/skynet-meets-the-swarm-how-the-berkeley-overmind-won-the-2010-starcraft-ai-competition/ (And this is a *late* example.)
(Of course using humans "inside" your machine and claiming it to be "AI" is on a whole other level of "fraud".)
I'd argue the exact opposite of this point: Your point: "(Of course using humans "inside" your machine and claiming it to be "AI" is on a whole other level of "fraud".) - Humans are THE most apt example of "artificial" intelligence - have you seen Congress? Have you met any politicians? But seriously, there's not a single tenet of so-called "Artificial Intelligence" that states that AI cannot be aided, policed, tuned or filtered by humans. Is there anything that says AI must be completely machine-based, with zero human intervention? In all honesty, AI cannot exist without humans and, although it's a nice dream to think of AI as completely autonomous, that is not a realistic expectation. It's like the wonderful Tesla "self-driving car" concept - for now, at least, and for the foreseeable future, the cars are "auto-assist;" meaning you can let them drive in lanes for a bit, but a human must occasionally "make contact with the steering wheel." And the AI concept is no different. Any and all AI results still must be vetted; both now and in the future. Though there may come a day when less vetting is needed; we always should have gatekeepers at some level.