However, if a robot from scifi were to walk out of the lab, like Data or Ava from Ex Machina, or we had access to HAL or Samantha from Her, we wouldn't just give it a specific technical name. We would consider those to be genuine AIs, in that they exhibit human-level cognitive abilities in the generalized sense.

It's true that in Her, Samantha was just an OS at the start, kind of like how the holographic doctor was just a hologram at the beginning of Voyager, but as both stories progress, it becomes clear they are more than that. By the end of Her, Samntha and the other OSes have clearly surpassed human intelligence.

Those are fictional examples, but they illustrate what we would consider to be genuine artificial intelligence and not just NLP or ML. The reason people always downplay current AI is because it's always limited and narrow, and not on the level of human general intelligence, like fictional AIs are.

I like that definition too (I know it from Seth Godin). It’s honest, in the sense that we just don’t know yet how to that stuff instead of labeling every single code of line as AI.

I think a reason for this is that in the early days of computing and AI research, strong AI / artificial general intelligence (AI possessing equivalent cognitive abilities to humans) was considered both to be within reach, and the most obvious solution to many problem domains. We now realise that things such as computer vision and natural language translation can be approximated with solutions falling far short of strong AI.