Claiming it's just marketing fluff is indicates you do not know what you're talking about.
They published a research paper on it. You are free to publish your own paper disproving theirs.
At the moment, you sound like one of those "I did my own research" people except you didn't even bother doing your own research.
The computer science industry isn't the authority on artificial intelligence it thinks it is. The industry is driven by a level of hubris that causes people to step beyond the bounds of science and into the realm of humanities without acknowledgment.
Intellegence has a very clear definition.
It's requires the ability to acquire knowledge, understand knowledge and use knowledge.
No one has been able to create an system that can understand knowledge, therefor me none of it is artificial intelligence. Each generation is merely more and more complex knowledge models. Useful in many ways but never intelligent.
Yes, Apple haters can't admit nor understand it but Apple doesn't do pseudo-tech.
They may do silly things, they may love their 100% mark up but it's all real technology.
The AI pushers or today are akin to the pushers of paranormal phenomenon from a century ago. These pushers want us to believe, need us to believe it so they can get us addicted and extract value from our very existence.
Proving it matters. Science is constantly proving any other thing that people believe is obvious because people have an uncanning ability to believe things that are false. Some people will believe things long after science has proven them false.
Bird flu is very deadly for chickens. Testing or not testing doesn't affect mortality rate. It's 75%-100% either way.
Not testing would mean they are not culling before it spreads therefore more dead chickens and fewer eggs.
This is not the same as testing cows where there is much lower mortality rate. In cows it results in lower milk production.
Apparently, it originally stood for galvanized iron based on the Wikipedia links shared elsewhere in this thread.
"His name is Robert Paulson."
He already announced he's done donating to the gop after he burned all that money in wisconsins Supreme Court race.
If you were to apply this same logic during various points during the world wars, you'd have been calling for the allies to surrender.
And what case were they attempting to make there?
Their comment is a variation of this comic.
Misconstruing how language works isn't an argument for what an existing and established word means.
I'm sure that argument made you feel super clever but it's nonsense.
I sourced by definition from authoritative sources. The fact that you didn't even bother to verify that or provide an alternative authoritative definition tells me all I need to know about the value in further discussion with you.