Consider your grandfather's old hammer. The one where the head fly off and you have to wedge it back on as best you can. Yes, it will fly off and hit you and bystanders, but the nails generally get in there when it stays on. It's basically as bad as a hammer can be, but a garage, a covered porch, and countless forts have been built with it.
Now consider a robot that, when properly programmed, can build a house from scratch, all by itself. All you need is a team of 5 engineers on standby to program it, and to keep it humming along. It is very hard to figure out how to use the robot to even drive a single nail, but if you know how to use it effectively, and have the entire house planned out in CAD and in every detail, it will just build a house in an afternoon.
It's easier and cheaper to hire carpenters to build a house than to hire the engineers that it takes to babysit the robot. Plus, no construction crew can plan a building down to the tiniest detail before they start, because the ground ends up being too soft, or it turns out that there is a bolder which must be cracked using explosives, or the windows called for in the plans aren't made anymore and the replacements are 3cm narrower, or the insulation is out of spec and a little too thick.
Don't rent the robot, buy a new hammer that isn't broken.
But just to stick to it, if you are building a house, use carpenters wielding your grandpa's hammer to drive in the nails.
if you need to explore Mars, your illiterate hammer wielding carpenters won't help and you might want that robot and expensive scientists after all.
The whole metaphor is flawed anyway. You argue by metaphorical extremes. Even within the metaphor (this is a wrong way to argue a point), there are plenty of intermediate positions between Grandpa's crusty hammer and terminator style robots. Would you use a power drill and bulldozers or would you use shovels and hammers? (or cudgels and stone tablets?
See? Metaphors can be twisted to argue any view point, even diametrically oppoiste ones. Arguing by metaphor is a logical fallacy (Equivocation iirc) It breaks down very fast and has no legs.
Now consider a robot that, when properly programmed, can build a house from scratch, all by itself. All you need is a team of 5 engineers on standby to program it, and to keep it humming along. It is very hard to figure out how to use the robot to even drive a single nail, but if you know how to use it effectively, and have the entire house planned out in CAD and in every detail, it will just build a house in an afternoon.
It's easier and cheaper to hire carpenters to build a house than to hire the engineers that it takes to babysit the robot. Plus, no construction crew can plan a building down to the tiniest detail before they start, because the ground ends up being too soft, or it turns out that there is a bolder which must be cracked using explosives, or the windows called for in the plans aren't made anymore and the replacements are 3cm narrower, or the insulation is out of spec and a little too thick.
Don't rent the robot, buy a new hammer that isn't broken.