I’m partial to the theory that Kennedy’s head spontaneously exploded, a rare but not unheard-of phenomenon, and the authorities hurried to find and frame some schmuck for shooting him, because the idea that an assassin could kill the President would lead to far less existential terror and mass panic than the idea that the President’s head could spontaneously explode without explanation, as could anybody else’s.
Guns used by AI would be designed to be used by AI. We already have automatic nerf and paintball turrets which to me says even if I haven't seen one, it exists for real guns too. Such a device would be perfect for AI control. Perfect in some strange sense anyway...
Is an a.i. derivative image of a political figure considered art or a political figure? I'll poll my fellow mods on the rule 4. Interesting. Because this is the issue in Hollywood. I'll vouch for you, Stamets.
I don't see "AI" being a relevant factor here, it should be treated the same as if it was drawn, photoshopped or otherwise.
Although I don't know the full intention of the rule as it was originally created, I assume the intention to be avoiding political debate here. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is by banning political figures, no questions asked, but that also prohibits a bunch of content that is unlikely to result in political debate.
At the same time, we have
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods
so I would consider this an exception on that ground.