> What does seem new is people trying to argue that ML isn't AI.

Well, ML is a well-defined class of processes, calling it AI seems a little disingenuous. Is a beam search still considered AI? How about Markov chains? It's much easier to refer to the specific processes rather than vague floating signifiers if you want to communicate clearly, which I would argue is a primary responsibility of journalists. It doesn't bode well for reporting if journalists aren't zeroed in on this problem of de-jargonizing tech reporting in the first place, and this leaves them vulnerable to essentially marketing ploys that inherently misrepresent the capabilities of the software.