Laws vary by country and state, but some European countries are actually more permissive than the US in the matter of self defense.

For example, Germany allows you to use deadly force to protect mere property, this is not allowed in many US states.

What did the US gain in Vietnam?

What did the USSR gain in Afghanistan?

Superpowers have a long history of leaving quagmires with their tails tucked between their legs.

You put as much effort into it as you would anything else.

Copyright is not meant to reward effort. This is a common misconception. Thirty years ago there was a landmark SCOTUS case about copyrighting a phone book. Back then, collecting and verifying phone numbers and addresses took a tremendous amount of effort. Somebody immediately copied the phone book, and the creators of the phone book argued that their effort should be rewarded with copyright protection.

The courts shot that down. Copyright is not about effort, it's about creative expression. Creative expression can require major effort (Sistine Chapel) or take very little effort (duck lips photo). Either way, it's rewarded with a copyright.

Assembling a database is not creative expression. Neither is judging whether an AI generated work is suitable. Nor pointing out what you'd like to see in a new AI generated work. So no matter how much effort one puts into those activities, they are not eligible for copyright.

To the extent that an artist takes an AI generated work and adds their own creative expression to it, they can claim copyright over the final result. But in all the cases in which AI generated works were ruled ineligible, the operator was simply providing prompts and/or approving the final result.

No, under copyright law it would be your work and your work alone.

Someone who is providing suggestions or prompts to you is not eligible to share the copyright, no matter how detailed they are. They must actually create part of the work themselves.

So for instance if you are in a recording studio then you will have the full copyright over music that you record. No matter how much advice or suggestions you get from other people in the studio with you. Your instruments/voice/lyrics, your copyright.

Otherwise copyright law would be a constant legal quagmire with those who gave you suggestions/prompts/feedback! Remember, an idea cannot be copyrighted, and prompts are ideas.

In the case of Stable Diffusion, the copyright would go to Stable Diffusion alone if it were a human. But Stable Diffusion is not a human, so there is no copyright at all.

Incompetence is not a legal defense.

When a company files for bankruptcy, employees who are owed money get first dibs on the liquidated assets.

I can't stop anyone from doing something I don't like.

But historically, there have been plenty of solutions to stop someone from doing something society doesn't like. For example, execution. Torture. Punishing their relatives. Exile. Prison. And asking them nicely to please stop.

Of those, I think prison is the best option. Putting someone in a cage may seem wrong, but letting them freely murder and rape innocent people is more wrong.

Most of the time, human guidance occurs before the AI generates anything. For example, ChatGPT was trained with human involvement, but most of what it writes will not be reviewed and edited by a human.

However, an identifiable component of the text must have been written by a human author in order to claim copyright. So most of what ChatGPT writes cannot be copyrighted. It would only be eligible for copyright if a human reviewed and edited what ChatGPT had written.

There is an underlying tension in that copyright is explicitly meant to be an incentive for creative efforts made by humans (who would otherwise be doing something else), and AI is generally designed to replace humans engaged in creative efforts.

There are EV manufacturers who never made an ICE, like Rivian and Lucid.

The whole point of the Chinese room is that it doesn't need anything "dedicated to creating the experience of consciousness". It can pass the Turing test perfectly well without such a component. Therefore passing the Turing test - or any similar test based solely on algorithmic output - is not the same as possessing consciousness.

Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They've actually done this in the past

What do you mean by criminals will be released? If you're proven guilty of theft, you will have to serve the same sentence as before.