It is exactly the sentiment of the title. From the paper's conclusion:
Although most financiers avoided "artificial intelligence" firms in the early 1990s, several successful firms have utilized core AI technologies into their products. They may call them intelligence applications or knowledge management systems, or they may focus on the solution, such as customer relationship management, like Pegasystems, or email management, as in the case of Kana Communications. The former expert systems companies, described in Table 6.1, are mostly applying their expert system technology to a particular area, such as network management or electronic customer service. All of these firms today show promise in providing solutions to real problems.
In other words, once a product robustly solves a real customer problem, it is no longer thought of as "AI," despite utilizing technologies commonly thought of as "artificial intelligence" in their contemporary eras (e.g. expert systems in the 80s/90s, statistical machine learning in the 2000s, artificial neural nets in the 2010s onwards). Today, nobody thinks of expert systems as AI; it's just a decision tree. A kernel support vector machine is just a supervised binary classifier. And so on.
The paper is picking up a long-standing joke in its title. From https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R0001002... (1987):
All these [AI] endeavors remain at such an experimental stage that a joke is making the rounds among computer scientists: “If it works, it’s not AI.”
The article is re-evaluating that prior reality, but it isn’t making the point that successful AI stops being considered AI. In the part you quote, it’s merely pointing out that AI technology isn’t always marketed as such, due to the negative connotation “AI” had acquired.
