If I'm annoying you that much, you can just stop replying or something.
The WTC part was an example. You're talking about how many people and non-automated things we need to keep things running. How many people service an airplane? How many people regulate air traffic? How many people keep an buildings the size of the WTC running? And yet all it took to destroy the "system" was five determined people and a vulnerable spot.
Are we going to give up on human pilots? You see that GIANT FUCKING VALVE THO?
You mean like we are in the process of giving up on human drivers?
My point the entire time ha sbeen that the AI (or a garden-variety hacker, since that is the level of AI you're allowing, here) could just convince one gullible person in the whole facility to turn that valve. Like, fake an email from their boss telling them to do it. I've been saying this over and over. The AI can get people to do things for it
German emergency vehicles don't have that override. I also don't know how you propose to solve gridlock with emergency vehicles. The purpose isn't to stop emergency vehicles, it's to stop those massive amounts of people necessary to keep things running.
In the end, I can say computers matter and you can say they don't, but let's take the long view. Computers are going to get more abundant.
I also think that statistically speaking, an AI with its resources and and intelligence and computing power will find one single way to end the world, sooner or later. The only thing stopping humans from that is either a missing desire or the inability to amass enough power.