That's what artificial means (even Pong had AI). If it ever becomes intelligent, it will be a synthetic intelligence (not an AGI).
For example, artificial vs synthetic diamonds; the former just looks the part, the latter is the genuine article - but manufactured as opposed to naturally formed.
The term is fuzzy though and people mean different things by it.
Although your analogy does make sense, but I've never run into "synthetic intelligence" used as a term.
As far as science fiction goes, it's irrelevant - we live in the real world and have had AI for a long time now (e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertie_the_Brain).
Sci-fi is many times a speculative guess about the possible future of technology, IMO its not completely irrelevant as an insight into what people mean or expect when they say certain things about future tech.
That's how one sci-fi universe draws the distinction. I'm not sure that that's binding on anyone else, but it was an interesting distinction.
> A synthetic diamond or laboratory-grown diamond (LGD), also called a lab-grown diamond, laboratory-created, man-made, artisan-created, artificial, synthetic, or cultured diamond.
Artificial also means non natural, not necessarily a mock or something that behaves like something else:
> made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural
I think that was their exact point. The terms are equivalent but carry different connotations
No, they aren't. Artificial diamond generally refers to cubic zirconia - which is not a diamond.
Synthetic diamond refers to genuine diamonds produced by humans (rather than natural forces).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_simulant#Artificial_si...
I mean, I guess if you insist on the 1950s definition of AI, perhaps it did. I'm not sure it did even by the 1970s definition, though, and it absolutely did not have it by the 2020s definition.
And if you're going to claim that we should keep using the 1950s definition, well, languages change over time. If you want to communicate with people in the 2020s, use definitions from the 2020s.
I don't know why you're defining words the way you are, but it's leading you to an absurd position. As I said elsewhere, if you want to communicate with the rest of us, you need to use the same definitions we do. Otherwise you're talking, not about AI, but about trying to re-define words, and that's a really uninteresting conversation.
Like a cuttlefish disguised as a rock.