Well, yeah, Apple is being reasonable now because Apple just got through a big bad PR thing with their recent failed attempt at "AI". Apple are currently trying, as much as possible, to avoid applying the term "AI" to anything.

But that's not true of any other actor in the market. Everyone else — but especially venture-backed companies trying to get/retain investor interest — are still trying to find a justification for calling every single thing they're selling "AI".

(And it's also not even true of Apple themselves as recently as six months ago. They were approaching their marketing this way too, right up until their whole "AI" team crashed and burned.)

Apple-of-H2-2025 is literally the only company your heuristic will actually spit out any useful information for. For everything else, you'll just end up with 100% false positives.

▲

mort96 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's generally perfectly safe to ignore products whose main purpose is to ride some hype wave.

▲

derefr a day ago | parent [-]

Who said anything about the product's purpose? Excessive use of the term "AI" is a decision of marketing departments, and happens entirely downstream of product design.

The same product could be produced five years ago or today, and the one produced five years ago would not be described as having "AI features", while the one produced today would.

(You can check for yourself: look at the online product listing for any mature "smart" device that got a new rev in the last three years. The Clapper would be described as an "AI" device today.)

	▲	mort96 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> (You can check for yourself: look at the online product listing for any mature "smart" device that got a new rev in the last three years. The Clapper would be described as an "AI" device today.) And I make an effort to avoid those with "AI" features where practical. I do not need an AI toothbrush.