I can move on the street om my feet, or I can move on the street with 240km/h with the use of a tool called a sports car. I think limits on the capacity of our tools are often the whole difference between what is legal and what is illegal.

There are a number of differences. First is that road rules apply to public roads. Private roads have far fewer rules. You might not be able to endanger a child or have duels to the death, but there generally aren't speed limits at all regardless if tools are involved.

Then there is the matter of why the laws exist. Generally they prevent harms, and if the limit is on a tool it is only because humans can't do the harm without a tool. A limit on noise generally only limits the use of tools, but if a human was able to break the limit without a tool then the limit would be applied to them. A law might not have been created yet just because it isn't a threat.

In this case, humans can already copy artwork, so there are already limits in place. In this case the tool doesn't really allow for anything new that couldn't already be done with money. If I could afford it, I could hire thousands of artists to create work in a similar art style up to the limits of the existing law. Such expenditures are rare, but are they something that needs to be limited which hasn't due to being too rare? If not, then why does a tool lowering the cost change the limit?

> Should the efficiency of a tool be a factor in the limits we put on a human?

Yes, for example hitting someone with a real sword is punished more harshly than hitting them with a plastic one. Tweeting out blatant lies to your 100 million followers is worse than tweeting out blatant lies to 2 followers. Shining a laser pointer at a plane is only illegal if it's strong enough to blind the pilot.

>Yes, for example hitting someone with a real sword is punished more harshly than hitting them with a plastic one.

Intent will be a factor. If you thought you had a real sword and intended to kill someone, your penalty will be the same even if the sword was plastic. Look at federal stings where people attempt to commit a horrible act but are given inert tools to do it with and fail. There are some edge cases, like the difference between attempted murder and murder, and there are laws specifically around guns that make using them to murder a worse crime, but in general the tool used doesn't matter and in the few cases it does, I question if those laws should exist and think they were put in place for reasons other than just stopping murder.

>Shining a laser pointer at a plane is only illegal if it's strong enough to blind the pilot.

Is it? Less resources will be spent to capture someone using a laser too weak to be noticed, but if caught would it really be legal?

The question is should we have different standards for computers and human doing the exact same thing - not different things. Your examples all have different outcomes based on the tool.

Do you think training a human artist on a body of work has the same outcome as training Stable Diffusion on that same body of work?

Not substantially different enough to criminalize the latter.

I don't think it's criminal, I just think it's wrong.