Precisely. Calling it autocomplete when it's capable of completing tasks that have nothing to do with autocomplete is silly. If you want to be consistent with your terminology, you'd have to call any stochastic process "autocomplete". What makes it double silly is that you can't really exclude that human intelligence is a stochastic process.
There may not be a difference there, I don't know but I wouldn't assume that intelligence is nothing more than sufficiently complex auto complete.
I'm not excluding that what we consider intelligence isn't equivalent to autocomplete. Go back and read my last comment, I explicitly left the door open for those two being functionally the same. I was only pointing out that you seemed to be assuming intelligence is fancy auto complete rather than it could be fancy auto complete.
I'm fine with calling any process "autocomplete" if it takes language as input and returns predicted language as output.
I don't feel any need to broaden the definition to include things that have nothing to do with language.