With respect, I think the distinction is irrelevant to the actual point. Whether the definitions are accurate enough means little to the actual problem, which is that we are rushing towards creating extremely powerful tools. Recorded (and arguably unrecorded) history seems to demonstrate the same pattern: inevitably, any tool will be put to use towards violence. I would argue that yes, it’s a tool and humans are the trigger, the same way that “guns don’t shoot people, people shoot people” is technically correct.

The real question then is: are human beings responsible enough, en masse, to wield these tools without restrictions? Would you let a toddler play with a loaded gun, even though without human action the gun is harmless? Maybe collectively we’re all little better, and eventually one of us is going to “pull the trigger” of ai just because it was shiny.

Ironically, I also don’t believe in regulation, unless that regulation is crushing and draconian. The only regulation that would seem to make sense is status quo anti ai, with only highly supervised research labs being able to interact with it. Clearly that’s unrealistic without the preceding calamity: millions had to die in WWI before we instilled a global taboo against chem weapons on ourselves. I don’t want either to happen (regulation or calamity), but I feel individually powerless to stop the relentless drive we (and I) seem to have in curiositying ourselves to death. So I’m stuck with all the rest of us, building SaaS apps and iPhone games.