The problem is that this ends with everybody calling their product magic and the word losing its original meaning; soon after it will have a meaning closer to "disappointing" or "lame".

>If it turns out that some Stable Diffusion frontend was actually sending the prompts to a team of Indians who happen to draw really quickly; that is no reason to get the enforcers involved.

Well, if the enforcement agency is the SEC I would think that it made a good deal of difference to the actual value of your company?

It doesn't really matter what the standard is... What matters is that there aren't some companies who push the limits far harder than others. If there are, then those companies who push the limits of what is allowed harder will be at an advantage, to the detriment of the public and the american economy as a whole.

> ...those companies who push the limits of what is allowed harder will be at an advantage, to the detriment of the public and the american economy as a whole...

Be careful with comments like that. I would remind you that [y]our performance claims would be deceptive if they lack scientific support or if they apply only to certain types of users or under certain conditions. You need adequate proof for that kind of comparative claim, too, and if such proof is impossible to get, then don’t make the claim.

If you think you can get away with baseless claims that [companies using these tactics are going to be at an advantage over companies that just make good/cheap/effective products], think again.