Does it really matter if ML is a “standalone product” or not? IMO it’s apparent that “software technology” cannot live as a standalone product independent from its “hardware”. Self-driving depends on an automobile with wheels. Generative AI relies on the computing power of specialized equipment. Machine learning, as a software/algorithm, depends on relevant hardware and a certain use case. Naturally, ML providers package their hardware, software and use case together, since ML is, by its nature, not a product at all if standalone.
Whether something is an augmentation or disruption is completely subjective. IMO, Google Ads’ use of ML is disruptive to human analyzers. Nvidia is disruptive to Intel and AMD. This is why business nonsense like disruptive innovation holds little practical value. How can it be a useful theory if you have to constantly maintain purity by telling everyone else that their definition of disruption is wrong?