He specifically addresses that he _wasn’t_ doing “real AI” then, and given they’re doing fundamentally the same or similar things, IBM aren’t now either.
Yes, that is my point (sorry that I mis-stated it a bit). He is offended by the claims of these charlatans when he knows the technology hasn't advanced to the point of being AI. How dare they claim otherwise.
Also, he knows that they know it's a lie. Unforgivable.
But he's fixated on the literal (once-true) meaning of "AI". It doesn't mean that anymore, not to the lay person and not to the average technologist either.
Like "begs the question", one has to just get over it.
