>Rather, we should resist our predisposition to attribute human traits to our creations
The whole idea behind AI is to add a human trait -- intelligence -- to machines. So, not only it's ok to attribute human traits to these particular creations, but this is the very reason they were created, and what we strive not just to attribute, but to actually give to them.
>and accept these remarkable inventions for what they really are—potent tools that promise a more prosperous and comfortable future.
Potent tools can also be used to a less prosperous and comfortable future. They've used many "potent tools" in WWI and WWII -- from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Now imagine AI-cops, AI-surveillance, AI-armies -- including robotic-AI armies. Not sure what those machines will do if they get autonomous in some "singularity", but I'm pretty sure what the greedy, corrupt, etc bastards in power in various places around the world would use them for -- more restrictions, more control, more gain for their personal interests, more and easier wars for the side that has them, more terrorism for the sides that can hack one.
Here's a thing, it is like with philosophy. Once something is understood and solved it is no longer philosophy but science.
Likewise with crude alleged intelligence.
The proper label to be used is usually robustness, analysis or optimization. (We're far away from actual creativity by the way, and quite far from even robustness in most cases.)
Or autonomous automated decision making. The scariest of the bunch. If not employed right or not robust or not "reasonable" (possible to reason about), it can have really bad results.
(By the way, automated decision making is pretty old, as old as industrial revolution.)
I mean, it is intelligence what we try to create -- and it is artificial, since by artifice we denote anything man made.
If the objection is as to the degree that the applications I've mentioned is actually intelligence (and not something cruder/dumber), I think we could still call it AI, and not just keep the term for actual human-or-above-level intelligence.
The whole idea behind AI is to add a human trait -- intelligence -- to machines. So, not only it's ok to attribute human traits to these particular creations, but this is the very reason they were created, and what we strive not just to attribute, but to actually give to them.
>and accept these remarkable inventions for what they really are—potent tools that promise a more prosperous and comfortable future.
Potent tools can also be used to a less prosperous and comfortable future. They've used many "potent tools" in WWI and WWII -- from airplanes to nuclear bombs.
Now imagine AI-cops, AI-surveillance, AI-armies -- including robotic-AI armies. Not sure what those machines will do if they get autonomous in some "singularity", but I'm pretty sure what the greedy, corrupt, etc bastards in power in various places around the world would use them for -- more restrictions, more control, more gain for their personal interests, more and easier wars for the side that has them, more terrorism for the sides that can hack one.