This feels like a strawman argument. I suspect the person you are replying to would agree with your last sentence. Can you think of any ways the two things might be perceived differently?
Your response implies that the comment is about the similarity of how dead someone is in each circumstance and then you take a position apparently opposite to the comment's author. To me, it stretches credulity that the comment was about that - my reading of it is that there are serious & interesting ethical/legal/existential questions at play with AI-induced death that we need to be grappling with. In this way, they are not the "same". Legally, who is to blame? How do we define "intent"? Are we OK with this becoming more normal? Putting lifespan issues aside, would you rather die of "natural causes", or because an AI device killed you?
