AI is a combination of two words "artificial" and "intelligence". However, the following question is worth-while asking:

Clarification - AI typically refers to a collection of algorithms implemented by machines (software + hardware) - resulting in the machine exhibiting the ability to preform non-trivial tasks.

Thus, AI has the following two components:

(a) The AI algorithms.

(b) The machines (software + hardware) - through which the algorithms are implemented.

Regarding
__component (b) __ - it is undoubtedly artifical - a robotic arm (corporal extension) a GPU (hardware) or Python code (software) written to implement an algorithm -
__is an artifical creation__.

However, what about
__component (a)__ - that is - the algorithms themselves?

One feature which, unarguably, does distinguish between components (a) and (b) - is the fact that the alghorithms themeselves are
__abstract concepts__ while the artifical machines which implement them are, by definition,
__not.__

The question of wether abstract concepts discovered\described\developed by us are "artificial" - is not new - and in matheamtics has actually occupied generations - under the titile of the question "is mathematics discovered or invented?". Here are some radically different answers from some great thinkers:

In order to simplify also this question - note that our mathematical corpus is really made of a few components (a) Theorems (b) definitions (the objects which the theorems describe) and (c) Proofs. The real dispute of "invented vs. discovered" is about (b) and mainly (c). Indeed, clearly, Pythagoras Theorem is true because it is a
__"static universal truth"__ - independently of Pythagoras and\or the proof which he gave. In this sense, the collection of these "universal truths" or "theorems" is probably most well described in terms of the views expressed by E. Frenkel (clip down to the left).

In fact, the collection of all such "theorems" is divided into two components - the theorems for which we know proofs and does for which we do not. The notion of such an abstract "collection" of theorems (with proofs) has been described rather poetically in the famous quote by great 20-th century mathematician Paul Erdos:

The question about "invention" is really relevant about how are new "definitions" introduced and how are proofs developed. And here, really, there seems to be an intermediary feature between "discovery" and "invention" - a "partnership" of a sort. In particualr, with respect to (b) and (c) the view seems aduqately described by the views expressed by S. Wolfram (clip down to the right). Invention could of course be replaced with the words "engineered" or "artifical". Invention is also "dynamic".

However, contarary to the algorithms , and, in particular, the AI algorithms, mathematical theorems are both "static" and indepndent of specific input. The AI algorithms, however, show us what they are capble of doing only once we give them input (millions of picures in different categories, text to analys, chess and go champions to compete against, etc...). In particular, since the only way we can implement these algorithms is through the machines - it seems to us that the machines are an essential part of the AI algorithm or in other words that the "machine is learning" - while in fact it is the
__algorithm that does the learning - the machine only facilitates the abstract algorithm__.

In particular, when it comes to the statical mathematical counterparts of "theorems" we have already graduated to viewing them as having an "abstract existence" by their own. That is - Pyhtogras theorem is valid as an abstract truth - without requiring us to draw a corporal triangle.

This actually leads to the following very interesting question:

In fact, the idea that such "abstract intelligence" exist is actually far from new and has been suggested, for instance, in the writings of Aristotle under the term "active intellect".

This idea of "abstract intellects" was mentioned in various other sources and writings. For instance Maimonides

However, Maimonides also goes further from Aristotle - as according to his view - there should also be a
__hierarchy__ among such "intellects".

In this sense

(1) The intellect underlying AI might not only be non-artificial but actually viewed as a "universal abstraction" - somewhat like the "static" Pythagoras theorem.

(2) The machine - is not the one doing the learning - but is only viewed as a vessel for uncovering the nature and capabilities of the "abstract intellect" or the "AI algorithm". (like smoke for a laser beam).

Last, somewhat optimistic:

(3) Some leading individuals have latelay expressed their concerns and worries that AI might lead for grave implications for humanity (Elon Musk, Hawking, ...) - for instance the effects on works, science, art etc... However, if we do accept the idea that "AI intellect" might have a "hierarchy" - it might be that just the fact that we have uncovered "intellects" - which can play chess, go, atari games... do music, recognize dogs and cats, sceince...better than us - doesn't mean we have uncovered the "highest" of these intellects - maybe the AI intellects we were capable to discover so far - are actually only the lowest rungs (even though they play atari really good)? Maybe the scientific thinking patterns - which we view as the peak would be found to be not the final rung. In this sense - there might still be what to discover.

In conclusion, let's go back to the question in the interview with E. Frenkel about "discovery vs. invention":

Maybe AI?...