The problem with your analogy is that a human assistant is capable of making moral judgments and choices and can therefore be held morally responsible. At the moment AI is not capable of making such decisions because it has no understanding, moral or otherwise, and therefore can’t be held morally responsible. They are chaotic and unpredictable because they act with weighted randomness. Knowing this makes the human even more morally responsible for the actions of an AI.

It’s like lighting a fire to clear brush on your land. If you keep control of it everything can go smoothly. If you don’t keep control, you’ve got a wild fire on your hands and it’s your fault not the fire’s that your neighbors lost their homes. You don’t blame the fire for doing what fire does. You blame the human who set the fire, believing they could control it. Fire isn’t the problem. It’s a tool that can be harnessed for productive purposes by responsible people who know what they’re doing. In the hands of irresponsible people it’s incredibly dangerous. Where my analogy breaks down is that fire can happen without a human cause and AI can’t.