That's kind of exactly my point when I say they are not architects, just tools: I agree 100% that people project intent into these things, and I believe that's exactly what our "ex Google employee" is doing here - and it's dangerous.
It's dangerous in part exactly because it shifts the responsibility for the acts of the tool to the tool itself, and away from its author. Like deforestation was the machine's fault, not the fault of the humans driving them.
I can never agree with your affirmation that "AI is already the Architect". It is not, the AI does not design anything. It does not plan anything. It has no ideas, no critical thinking, no judgement of value or morals. The AI just does what it's told, like a tool, a worker ant, or any other algorithm. It's complicated enough that it's not obvious to us what it was told to do, but ultimately it's all it can do.
I understand your point, and I'll agree to disagree. I think it just has to do with what we value. Even though it is a tool, tools change what options we have. If you have a shovel, 'digging holes' is now an optional activity for you to pursue that wouldn't have been otherwise. Is the shovel the 'architect' of your ability to dig holes? Maybe no, but the tool-human interaction is a back and forth. Tools generate affordances and humans choose to act on affordances.
Maybe put it this way, if there was an AI that could plan out your day in a way that would optimize some metric of happiness that you agree with, you might start to use the AI. Is the AI the architect of your day because it plans it out and tells you what to do, or are you still in charge because you could choose to stop using the tool, even though it would not be in your best interest?
I think this is the point that we are reaching with AI: it is a tool that is so flexible that it doesn't just offer single affordances, but begins to be used as a guiding function for what decisions to take. At that point I think it /is/ an architect of some kind.
Again though, this is mostly just quibbling about definitions and terms.
It's dangerous in part exactly because it shifts the responsibility for the acts of the tool to the tool itself, and away from its author. Like deforestation was the machine's fault, not the fault of the humans driving them.
I can never agree with your affirmation that "AI is already the Architect". It is not, the AI does not design anything. It does not plan anything. It has no ideas, no critical thinking, no judgement of value or morals. The AI just does what it's told, like a tool, a worker ant, or any other algorithm. It's complicated enough that it's not obvious to us what it was told to do, but ultimately it's all it can do.