[Nadya]

People can give children terrible information too and steer/groom them in harmful directions. So why stop there at "AI" or poorly defined "algorithms"?

The only content children should see is state-approved content to ensure they are only ever steered in the correct, beneficial manner to society instead of a harmful one. Anyone found trying to show minors unapproved content should be imprisoned as they are harmful to a safe society.

[SiempreViernes]

The type of people who groom children into violence fall under a special heading named "criminals".

Because automated systems that do the same thing lack sentience, they don't fit under this header, but this is not a good reason to allow them to reproduce harmful behaviour.

[Nadya]

So selling the Anarchists Cookbook is illegal? Being a YouTuber targeting teens for <extreme political positions> is illegal? This is honestly news to me given how many political YouTubers there are who are apparently criminals?

Given some of the examples I'm not so sure a human would be charged for saying the same exact things the AI has said. Without an actual push to suggest violence and even that's difficult to prove in cases where it does happen (eg. The cases where people pressured others into suicide or convinced them to murder)

[o11c]

If someone sets booby-traps in their home and it hurts someone, the trap isn't guilty, but the homeowner is.

... I wonder if "this software is licensed, not sold" is relevant here?