If you have explanatory models constraining the space of possible function fits, etc. etc. then I concede the point -- though, I rather regard it as my point.

The comment I replied to used "AI" in its generic sense which I take to name the theory-free frequentist stats currently in vogue. I don't regard theories as AI -- so adding physics to a NN is, in large part, computational physics. You can call it "AI", but then so-goes any use of a computer model of any kind.