That AI doesn't have an agreed upon definition doesn't mean that we can say it is whatever we want to say it is!
For example, you may perhaps argue (at a very big stretch) that travelling salesman is an AI problem- that's arguing on the details. But to claim that all of AI is reducible to one sub-sub-field of AI, deep learning? That's just ignoring the fact that there is an entire research field that is commonly called "AI", with conferences and journals that have "AI" in their name, that are not about deep learning, with many thousands of researchers who consider their work "AI" and who do not work with deep learning, not to mention the 50 or so years and the mountain of work that this field considers its own, that also is not about deep learning.
For example, you may perhaps argue (at a very big stretch) that travelling salesman is an AI problem- that's arguing on the details. But to claim that all of AI is reducible to one sub-sub-field of AI, deep learning? That's just ignoring the fact that there is an entire research field that is commonly called "AI", with conferences and journals that have "AI" in their name, that are not about deep learning, with many thousands of researchers who consider their work "AI" and who do not work with deep learning, not to mention the 50 or so years and the mountain of work that this field considers its own, that also is not about deep learning.