Forbes recently had a nice collage of articles on AI and the status of AI :
the same ideas as 30 years ago, new trials, and cost reduction is the main driver!
There are people stating that computers anyhow have only two hand full of ideas which are repeated over and over since 30 - 40 years, e.g.
Three more negative arguments:
Informatics builds large systems - in order to do this, it must be strictly and simply structured; this implies a lot of repetitive work (it does not help that this is automated - automation is just lifting the level, the simplicity at the human interface has to remain by definition).
For many applications, IT is under the surface, and the applications are in the foreground (and are visible, and in a company will earn the career).
IT is so popular and fast progressing, that a large part of the pragmatic progress is known to almost everybody who wants or needs to, computer scientists or laymen, - with a relatively low entry level (cp. this to quantum physics, for example!): the professional advantage is often small.
But apart from this unappreciative economic and social role, Informatics and IT become more and more fundamentally important: Informatics and IT are the science and the engineering discipline to organize every work done in society, and because all changes in nature can be described as ongoing work, all nature.
The scientific importance of Informatics cannot be exaggerated:
Even the connection between information and physics is not satisfactorily understood - and no limits of IT systems are visible: Informatics builds ultra-large-systems and larger.
But the science behind this is just in status nasciendi!
Therefore in daily life, IT is just infrastructure - but it is also the infrastructure of the human future!
To have a simple index, I propose to have a hardness scale, similar to the Mohs hardness for minerals, with:
This gives my proposed scale "Scientific Hardness Index" from +3 to -3:
+3: Fundamental science (superhuman), e.g. fundamental physics
+2: Science established, probably high precision, e.g. astronomy, evolution
+1: Scientific theory under investigation e.g. extended longevity
0: Neutral -neither scientific nor obvious nonsense e.g. visitors from other stars
-1: Beside science but not hard contradiction (e.g. astrology)
-2: Hard contradiction (e.g. predictions, telekinesis)
-3: Proven wrong (or obsolete) (e.g., "earth is a hollow sphere")
These numbers cannot show the tremendous nonlinear difference in the system strength of these levels: I would like to compare