That's a pretty bold assertion given that the field of AI has a history[1][2][3] stretching back 60 some odd years. What's your basis for making the claim that there is "no such thing as AI"? And for that matter, why would you make a bright-line distinction between "machine learning" and AI in the first place? Most people consider ML a subset of the broader AI rubric, meaning ML is AI.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_workshop
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellig...
Intelligence created by the man (or a group of) is not artificial intelligence, is human intelligence in a canvas. It might be books, paintings or code.
It's just another example of humans elevating themselves above the, so far, non-sentient, intelligences in the world.
Yeah currently nothing we have encountered is as intelligence as us, so I'd say yeah we haven't created anything that mimics human level intelligence or sentience yet, so yeah everything thus far has been an artificial attempt at some aspect of human intelligence, but eventually we will create something intelligent, and it won't be "artificial" or mimicking intelligence, but it will be an independent source of sentience and intelligence.
Why don't I just answer "yes" and then you can stop worrying about it?
Well, yes. "Artificial" first and foremost means "man-made". The point of terming intelligence as artificial is to explicitly differentiate between the intelligence/cognitive modules developed over millennia of natural evolution and, well, man-made attempts at mimicking this.
Moreover, as another comment mentions, ML is a subset of AI.
The term "Artificial intelligence" is not what drives people up a wall. It's actually the fact that it is _sold_ as capable of more than reality is what angers people.
Verbatim interpretation of AI has nothing to do with the field of AI, only with science fiction.
