pull down to refresh
Oh I see, you actually have to have a body count to acknowledge the matter in the discussion.
"... an estimated 140 000 individuals were exposed to lead and other contaminants in drinking water."
It clearly was a comparison that if humans can muck up the drinking water supply without AI, it opens up possibilities of much more with AI involved. But that's okay, keep looking for bodies while everyone is poisoned. It's a bit of an ostrich head in the sand position but it works well with denial of risk.
Again, you're drawing strange conclusions and projecting very odd motivations onto me.
If there were more than 140,000 people in the Flint area (there were), then what you've shown is that even poisoning the municipal water supply will leave many unexposed. Since that was exactly my point, I'm not sure what it is you think you're demonstrating here?
How does Flint prove anything I said wrong?
Did I miss every single person there dying or is almost everyone still alive?