Depending on what tool it would be comparable too and how it was used an algorithm or ML model or "AI" would probably end up in the same dual-use discussions as

Depending on what tool it would be comparable too and how it was used an algorithm or ML model or "AI" would probably end up in the same dual-use discussions as we have now. A hammer that hammers is a good hammer. So if a system of ML/AI were to be optimised to hammer well (and 'be' a hammer) that is fine. If someone then would decide to use that hammer to attack someone and break their bones, would that be the hammer's fault? Probably not. But when you get a hammer that is optimised for bone-breaking the discussion changes. Same with a kitchen knife vs. hunting knife vs. kabar which are all knives but are also all 'named' with different intentions. And suddenly it's no longer dual-use or 'who is at fault' but in the very grey area of 'what was the intention'. And that brings us back to 'transparency' which loops back in to "what if it is just a tool". Darn circles.