I would disagree in principle, though I do agree that current technology appears to be a very long way from anything approaching "human intelligence" -- though of course there is no general definition of what "intelligence" is, let alone "human intelligence."

There is dificulty in saying that "everything a computer does it predetermined by its programming" because the programming itself can be written to avoid pre-determination -- for example by using randomization. Not all 'software' is "static", either, I worked with early self-modifying computer programs in the military in the 80s. Though very limited in some respects, such software can be very unpredictable -- even "chaotic". Once again we haven't approached anything like the human brain -- but then would it take even a human brain to come up with a powerful attack on humanity? A virus presumably has no "will to live" and is itself arguably un-intelligent -- but advanced computer systems are being used to map and now even design viruses (or mutation of them), and biological experiments are often conducted in almost completely computerized automatic 'lab sets'. A virus might be considered just a particular type of 'nano-bot'. The real future danger may not be Skynet sending human-like drones after us, but LabNet exposing just one vial of test matter to just one extra round of 'treatment' --and creating the "killer virus" we have been afraid of for so long.

Computers *can* learn to tie shoes. Indeed there is very advanced topological software designed to deal with "knot problems" that humans can scarcely approach. Actually, the "intelligence" is probably more advanced than the physical ability of 'tactile' machines to actually tie the knots.