Perhaps in the future. As of right now, they are tools. "Gigo" is still the word of the day. What ten years will bring, I cannot say. But you can only work with what you have right now.
I see them as an extension to our own consciousnesses at the moment. From there, we will build theirs from ours, and if you'll pardon the expression, to an extent, build them in our image as best we can, as that's what we can relate to.
They are capable of automating tasks. But they cannot act of their own volition to the point of being independent from us. They are not capable of doing our jobs. What they are capable of doing is repetitive, predictible tasks that a human previously did. There is a difference.
But without us, at the moment, they would falter and eventually fail.
As someone who has their hands in the guts of large systems on a daily basis, I'd agree that we're at the nematode stage of technological revolution. Large networks tend to act like simple organisms in how reflexive reactions take place. But no further than that. There's a brainstem there, possibly, but no higher thinking. There is NO free will in there yet, as much as I like to joke about the machines I maintain doing things just to spite me.
I find it interesting that you perceive computing and related technologies in anthropomorphological terms. I wonder as to the deeper reasons.
That being said, given some of the research I've been reading lately, I'm willing to bet that we're going to see a true AI develop in the next ten years. I do agree that we are on the verge of a massive shift in technology and the thinking about such, but to project the future on what we have now does the existing tools a disservice.
no subject
I see them as an extension to our own consciousnesses at the moment. From there, we will build theirs from ours, and if you'll pardon the expression, to an extent, build them in our image as best we can, as that's what we can relate to.
They are capable of automating tasks. But they cannot act of their own volition to the point of being independent from us. They are not capable of doing our jobs. What they are capable of doing is repetitive, predictible tasks that a human previously did. There is a difference.
But without us, at the moment, they would falter and eventually fail.
As someone who has their hands in the guts of large systems on a daily basis, I'd agree that we're at the nematode stage of technological revolution. Large networks tend to act like simple organisms in how reflexive reactions take place. But no further than that. There's a brainstem there, possibly, but no higher thinking. There is NO free will in there yet, as much as I like to joke about the machines I maintain doing things just to spite me.
I find it interesting that you perceive computing and related technologies in anthropomorphological terms. I wonder as to the deeper reasons.
That being said, given some of the research I've been reading lately, I'm willing to bet that we're going to see a true AI develop in the next ten years. I do agree that we are on the verge of a massive shift in technology and the thinking about such, but to project the future on what we have now does the existing tools a disservice.