Researchers have been using "AI" as a term to describe their work for nearly 70 years at this point.
I don't see why we should throw away six decades of nomenclature just because "LLMs aren't actually intelligent".
It's a perfectly cromulent term.
"AI is whatever hasn't been done yet." — Larry Tesler
For example, we no longer consider beating people at chess to be an benchmark of "intelligence" - it's just a program. Which seems to me to what the OP is arguing.
His definition of the "I" in AI was, "the computational part of the ability to achieve goals in the world".
E.g. autonomous driving already proved too hard a task for ML for the foreseeable future. Also "hallucination" is a problem with no clear solution in sight.
Has it? Seems like Waymo is still making good progress. They became generally available in SF recently IIRC.
Gemini felt like the tipping point where the flaws became obvious, which they then started noticing in the others.
I thought the academics kept on using the term, while commercial interests backed away during winter and came rushing back as soon as it was fashionable again.
Also when I studied these things in the 2000s the program was called "Informatics".
Thanks for the new word of the day!