But we’re being sold an “autonomous saw”. Who’s at fault here?

An "autonomous saw" still needs guidance; what's removed is - most of - the repetitive effort.

Not the saw that's being sold as "smarter" than all humanity and being said that it solves navier stokes.

At the end of the day, no matter how you put it, someone has to still actively ask for those solutions. When we get to the point that the saw decides to activate itself and go cutting stuff without being asked, then we can say the tool is actually doing stuff.

[delayed]

It's not really an apples-to-apples: you can ask an "AI" to build software to do a particular thing, and it will happily oblige and spend some of your money on it and produce something that actually runs.

You cannot just turn the saw on (if electric), point it at some wood and expect anything resembling furniture.

Ai should randomly cut off people fingers occasionally as a polite reminder

I agree that the tool shouldn't be at fault, but I refuse to take responsibility when managers force me to use it.

But it's not a tool, anymore than IKEA is a tool.

Comparing AI to a saw it's like admitting it's the same as an IDE. To some extent it is, it is more autonomous too though. It's more like a brain child robot with a saw and a grin on the face

Comparing AI to simple tools like a hammer or saw just isn’t right.

AI tools are complex systems that definitely can have agency, even though that is mostly human controlled. Bad controls = bad outcomes.

Yes, I totally agree that humans have the most control over them, but that doesn’t mean it’s completely off the hook.

If we really have to draw simplified real life comparisons, maybe a car or a gun would be more suitable “systems” that we can metaphorically compare AI to.

But it's hyper ultra super duper intelligent as far as marketing informs me. No one marketed a saw that way.