No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI...
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher, and there is no "AI field" because there's no AI to study.
At best that would make you a proto- or pseudo- AI researcher.
On the other hand, if my definition is correct, then you can actually be called an AI researcher, but doing so proves my initial point. Just the fact that you call yourself an AI researcher belies the fact that you don't even have the conviction of your own beliefs.
I will agree there are a small number of people who research AI - but only consider "strong AI" to be true AI - however they're a pretty small minority and they qualify what they mean by stressing the true or strong bit in order not to confuse the other AI researchers as to what they're talking about.
P.S. did you have any posters, papers or talks at AAAI 2014? Perhaps I saw some of your stuff. What area are you working on?