How is AI-Powered Automation Different from Traditional Automation?

I'm cynical after reading this question. It is a pretty deep for a first post.

Can you sweeten the bait you're fishing with? Who or what are you? What is your motivation? What do you need? Are you looking to engage the community as a new member? 

I take a nibble, Catwell post  Is Using AI to Generate Code Actually Helpful? regarding AI might be of interest. 

Why not ask an AI this question?   When asking this question to ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini,

Gemini had the best answer, followed by Copilot. ChatGPT was the briefest.

My opinion...

  We gripe when Marketing doesn't ask our opinion and we gripe when they do. 

The difference?  Now we've added HYPE!

Yeah, but it's adaptive.  After we've added a ton of more instances - and told the model what's important - and tested it - and refined the model.  How is that different from hard coding a new reference?  It isn't... but we've added HYPE!

Yeah, but it's predictive.  You mean it makes an estimate based on past performance.  That's not any different than what we have now.  Okay... but we've added HYPE!

Will it be more than it is?  Yes.  Is it there yet?  No.  It's like Facebook  It's pretending to be way cooler than it really is in the hopes of getting people to like it. 
"Smarter marketing"... !  I find that humorous.  I'd go with "easier prey".
If the hype and the buzzwords finally get you the upgrade to the automation system you need, call it "AI" and move ahead.  Most of the AI I've seen handles written correspondence.  We've added an OCR program to a 1980's decision system and call it AI.  Business and manufacturing systems should be evolving and improving over time.  "AI" is just the current marketing phrase.

Mark_Witman said:

My question is: what truly sets AI-powered automation apart from traditional automation?

To answer your question... I reckon AI-powered automation is likely to at least give you a long winded nicely-worded email or notification as to why the system crapped out (yet again). I suppose it beats getting those cryptic messages "System failure as at hh:mm:ss. Error code: 55322112!" and then having 10 minutes before the morning operations meeting to figure out the real cause of the problem.

"everyone is talking about"

Well I wasn't (until now I guess), so that's not true. But then, I was part of the old logical formalism kind of AI, rather than the digest everything accessible on the internet and dredge up happenstance statistical matches rather than causal models kind of AI. I do know which one I'd trust more to be controlling the airplane I'm on, even if it does require expensive "knowledge engineering."

I have been following AI for more than 40 years.

I would say it is all of the above.

The biggest difference today is that we finally have processor units fast enough to do the complex inferencing in near real time.

You used to get the same results years ago, but they took so long to complete that they were irrelevant to the decision making process.

Now you have an ability to get near instant results.

Unfortunately, the results are still questionable, and the entire decision process is still not testable.

I will not begin to trust the AI solution until I can ask it WHY it came to that conclusion and WHAT were the key decision points.

As an experience analyst I need that back up information to assess the validity of the algorithm.

TRUST but VERIFY!

You can actually ask AI's why and what, and you will often get a good answer, but hallucination creeps in often enough that you still can't trust it blindly.