Once we have computers that can think like humans, there'll be people saying 'oh, it's not real "understanding", it's just generating speech that matches things it's heard in the past with some added style', not realizing that the same also applies to human writers.
As long as the bar keeps rising and we've found business applications, there will be no AI winter.
No redefinition, and using proper distinctions takes nothing away from the accomplishments made in the field. We don't even have anything close to a scientific understanding of awareness or consciousness. Being able to create machines actually possessing awareness seems fairly far off.
Being able to create machines that can simulate the qualities of a conscious being, doesn't seem so far off. I suspect when we get there the data will point to there being a qualitative difference between real consciousness and simulated. Commercial interests, and likely government bureaucracy will have a vested interest drowning out such ideas, though.
The bar hasn't moved. We've just begun aiming at different targets. That we succeed in hitting the more modest ones only makes sense.
The meanings people ascribe to those terms nowadays are very diverse and distant from the original hypotheses. Sometimes language evolves usefully so that expression is easier and ideas can be conveyed more accurately, but I'm afraid when it comes to "strong" and "weak" AI, another, more damaging kind of semantic drift has taken place that has muddied and debased the original ideas.
Those terms are victims of the hype surrounding AI. I suspect this is part of why the field has trouble being taken seriously.
[0] https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/74/what-is-the-differ...