There’s no danger of computers ruling us, but there is a peril in employing them to greatly magnify the impact of our own errors.
As Denyse O’Leary asks, “Why is it comparatively easy to develop a program to play chess, as opposed to teaching a robot to walk freely?”
Darwin’s evolutionary mechanism is just a blunt recipe, an algorithm, and it can only select what is immediately functional.
It’s strikes me that this is a difference between design and Darwinian thinking.
Egnor he nails it by noting that Shallit, not uniquely, falls victim to the mereological fallacy.