You make a claim that [They do learn from much deeper low level structures in the domain they are exposed to] and yet what we see is not learning. All such syst

You make a claim that [They do learn from much deeper low level structures in the domain they are exposed to] and yet what we see is not learning. All such systems are constrained by the programming that goes into them. As such, these systems may be able to generate data that is then stored, but this is not learning. In addition you make the claim [They can be aware of implicit correlations and constraints that are totally outside what may be recognised in the scientific understanding] and again this is not awareness in any way. Is is still a result of the constraints of the programming that goes into them. Being able to predict something is not learning nor is it awareness. Mathematical equations predict things that can occur and these are not aware nor are the equations learning. The programming that underlies these systems is mathematics and as such are just as constrained. I have said this elsewhere, all such systems are Artificial Stupidity systems. It takes a human mind (which we still do not understand) to look at the results. To say that these systems are more than they are is missing the usefulness that can be obtained from them. Irrespective of any claims otherwise, all such systems are simple and are in reality GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) systems. To forget this is to walk a path that is dangerous. I have, over decades, had to deal with systems that appeared to give the "right" or "reasonable" outputs and yet when analysed where found to be in great need of redevelopment or in some cases thrown away as pure garbage. Computer systems are useful but don't depend on them without human checking and control.