This is no different to saying a person with a gun murdered someone rather than attributing the murder to the gun. An AI gun is just a really fancy gun.
There may come a time where we grow so accustomed to this, that the decision is so heavily influenced by AI, that we believe it more than human decisions.
And then it can very well kill a human through misdiagnostic.
I think it is important to not just put this thought aside, but to evaluate all risks.
I would imagine outcomes would be scrutinized heavily for an application like this. There is a difference between a margin of error (existing with human doctors as well) and a sentient ai that has decided to kill, which is what it sounds like you're describing.
If we didn't give it that goal, how does it obtain it otherwise?
A prompt is a _very_ different matter.
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...
> 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.