Yes. I do not believe tool creators should limit or censor their users. I do not think word processors should ban you for writing something bad about the government or against a policy the company does not like. I do not think a paint program should ban the user because they drew a penis and that could cause for brand damage if people knew they used a company's program for that. I don't believe that web browsers should prevent users from committing copyright infringement if they see you going on a site known to host pirated material. I don't believe your operating system should lock you out and delete all of your files if it detects that you might be developing malware.
I think it gives too much control to businesses which do not have a near exact market replacements and let them dictate too much of culture.
There's nothing stopping any tool maker from doing those things. In fact, they do those things all the time! So if tool makers and tools are all limiting use in a self-serving way anyway, why should we not also expect them to limit use in a way that protects children from sexual exploitation through the use of those tools? I respect the principle but I think this is an idealistic extreme and not really based in any practicality or realism.
It may be legal to add such features, but that doesn't mean I think it is a good thing. This is a modern problem. Shovel manufacturers were never able to have power over what you could use shovels for so the idea of making laws around it made no sense. It's possible to be in a world where to print out a political flyer you have to find a politically aligned operating system and install a politically aligned web browser to go to a politically aligned web retailer who will sell you a politically aligned printer using a politically aligned payment processor with politically aligned banks. And if no one is aligned with you offering one of those services I guess you are just out of luck. This example isn't even touching the point that AI filters are not perfect and will flag false positives.
>they do those things all the time
They actually don't. It's highly irregular, usually only when the law requires such censorship functionality do they get included in products.
>idealistic extreme
It is not an extreme position. Practically every other tool other than AI is not locked down. AI is by far the exception here and is a step back from the freedom of everything else.
This is the kind of abstraction I was hoping to avoid. It's obviously intellectually dishonest to compare AI to a shovel. I'll not bother with more. You're not in the market for thinking.
I think it gives too much control to businesses which do not have a near exact market replacements and let them dictate too much of culture.