“AI” is not a source. A model has a maker, a product name, and a date of the claim. If the maker will not say which system produced an output, we do not promote the output into a fact about the world. We may still report that the maker said it, and we will say who said it.
We do not write that a system “decided”, “believed”, or “wanted”, unless we are quoting a person who used those words, and then the words stay inside the quote. Software produces output. People deploy it, sell it, ban it, and are responsible for it. The sentence should make that obvious.
The Gulf and Latin American markets are full of announcements that a ministry or a bank has “adopted AI”. The adoptable thing is a contract with a vendor or a pilot with a scope. If the document names the scope, we name the scope. If it does not, the headline does not grow a scope the document never had.