Perhaps. My issue is more with the muddy waters when it comes to "AI". It might be because it's near to my profession, and I frequently encounter a fervent, yet clueless enthusiasm. When that same lack of specificity is used to argue for what they don't really understand either, for example:

The problem isn’t that AI is dogshit. In fact there are many things that have been revolutionized because of AI. Our understanding of biology has catapulted forward decades because of new models.

It does beg the question if they understand what they are talking about. "AI is dogshit", is weird. Are we talking about LLMs here? They are great for a lot of things. They are pretty horrible at doing what most seem to think they are great at, but that's perhaps a different matter.

Then there is the "Our understanding of biology has catapulted forward decades because of new models". If we are generalizing "AI models" to include the ones that have contributed to biology, we end up with a definition of "AI" that becomes "model based computational solution optimization".