Because automated systems that do the same thing lack sentience, they don't fit under this header, but this is not a good reason to allow them to reproduce harmful behaviour.
Given some of the examples I'm not so sure a human would be charged for saying the same exact things the AI has said. Without an actual push to suggest violence and even that's difficult to prove in cases where it does happen (eg. The cases where people pressured others into suicide or convinced them to murder)
To quote Jeffery Lewis: Thank you for your extremely good-faith criticism. I will give it the attention it deserves.
Absolutely nowhere did I equate writing a book to grooming. I equated selling the book in the greater context that "providing children with potentially harmful/dangerous information should be illegal because it grooms them to commit harmful actions to themselves or others" and this context would carry the implications that by "selling" I am referring particularly to "selling it to children" since "providing children with potentially harmful/dangerous information should be illegal because it grooms them to commit harmful actions to themselves or others". With my argument being would it be criminal for an AI but not for a human?
So to clarify the argument: Writing the book is fine. Selling the book to adults is fine. Adults reading the book is fine. But if providing dangerous information to children should be made illegal - how would selling such a book to a child not be considered illegal? Because it was written by a human and not an AI?
Calling it fraud would be more apt, that is definitely a book you share copies of for free.
To clarify: yes this is indeed the sort of attention I think your objection deserves.
Have a happy holidays.
... I wonder if "this software is licensed, not sold" is relevant here?