But regulation of people's behaviour is how we deal with these things. There should be consequences for abusing other people no matter what tools you use.
If you're talking about banning AI ("AI apologists"?) then were do you draw the line? People use cars to kidnap children and rape and murder them, should be ban cars? AI has positive and negative uses just like cars.
So let me restate it a different way. I'm gravely concerned with the destructive potential of AI and the exploitation in this article is just one of hundreds of negative consequences. Yet advocates of AI are shitting on any attempt to constrain it, and instead are tripping over themselves to monetize it, risks be damned.
For this particular article case, there is no need for new laws or rules. Just take the boys, give them a harsh warning, public humiliation and if it repeats then suspend from the school. Whether there is AI or no AI, it is irrelevant.
Whether this is relevant or not about the harms of social media is not related to the AI. If the article headline would be "social media gives new ways to bullying" it would be more to correct. However the article headline is about AI, and is thus a clickbait, and dishonest in its narrative.
There are risks with AI as with anything, and there can be regulation of anything, it's just a question of what, which you don't go into a all.
To use your language: it seems you just want to shit on AI and people who want to use and develop it, and these victims are little more than a convenient sensation for you to push your pet peeve.
Neither do yours. Peace be upon you.
Are juvenile taunts really the best you can do?