I think any answers to this question will be verging on opinion-based, but I would say there is a gradient from
- theoretical or pure statistics, focused on rigorous proofs of the properties of various statistical procedures or tests;
- applied statistics, more interested in how procedures can be used with real data sets;
- computational statistics, which focuses on algorithms and computational properties of procedures;
- statistical learning, which asks how we can use computationally efficient, scaleable procedures to learn about patterns in data, but still using a statistical framework to understand how these procedures work;
- machine learning, which is also interested in computationally efficient, scaleable procedures, but is less interested in the statistical properties of the answers;
- artificial intelligence, which generalizes machine learning to a much broader framework of 'computer architectures to solve problems'.
Statistical learning and machine learning in particular are very similar, but statistical learning is a little closer to statistics and machine learning is a little closer to computer science. Someone who works in SL is more likely use confidence intervals to describe uncertainty, while someone who works in ML would (more likely) use risk bounds. People who do SL are generally interested in both prediction and inference, while ML tends to be more focused on prediction (although not exclusively: quantifying variable importance can be thought of as a form of inference). For what it's worth, Wikipedia says
Some statisticians have adopted methods from machine learning, leading to a combined field that they call statistical learning
There a big overlaps between each step in this gradient, and it's arguably not a strict gradient (for example, you could argue that computational statistics and statistical learning are overlapping subsets of applied statistics).