We also choose to have cars, which cause a certain amount of death. It's an acceptable tradeoff (which most don't think about much). I'd speculate that it's mostly people who don't use cars who criticize them the most, and the same with guns.
That’s an absurd comparison, to the point I’ having trouble believing you’re arguing in good faith. The goal of cars is transportation; the goal of guns is harm. Cars causing deaths are accidents; guns causing deaths is them working as designed. Cars continue to be improved to cause fewer fatalities; guns are improved to cause more.
> I'd speculate that it's mostly people who don't use cars who criticize them the most, and the same with guns.
You mean that people who are opposed to something refuse to partake in its use and promotion? Shocker.
And “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”¹ is a bad argument created by the people who benefit from the proliferation of guns, so it’s very weird that you’re using that as if it were a valid argument. It isn’t. It’s baffling anyone still has to make this point: easy access and availability of guns makes them more likely to be used. A gun which does not exist is a gun which cannot be used by a person to murder another.
It’s also worth nothing the exact words of the person you’re responding to (emphasis mine):
> It can also murder people, and it will continue being used for that.
Being used. As in, they’re not saying that AI kills on its own, but that it’s used for it. Presumably by people. Which doesn’t contradict your point.
¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people,_peop...