You just conceded my entire point. Ethical AI exists, it can be regulated, and the problem is how a tool is built and used, not the mere existence of the tool. The rest is meaningless boogeymaning. Your “99.99%” figure came directly out of your ass, and abundant supply does not make something worthless. Additionally, nobody said Ghibli knockoffs cure cancer. You picked the dumbest use case you could find and are pretending it defines the whole technology. You also turned “your computer is built on exploitation too” into “well, my exploitation is probably smaller and somebody may have been paid,” which is not remotely moral. I think it's extremely smart to do some of what you mentioned though: regulate training, require transparency, license protected work. Great. None of that supports “do not use AI" or invalidates it as a tool. Oh and ending a comment full of invented statistics, cherry-picked examples, and arguments nobody made by accusing everyone else of bad faith is honestly... 🤌