I'm saying `A => B` (something should be illegal if it's primarily for crime) and you're saying `-A` (LLMs are not primarily for crime), which is not really a d

I'm saying `A => B` (something should be illegal if it's primarily for crime) and you're saying `-A` (LLMs are not primarily for crime), which is not really a disagreement. My point is disagreeing with the GGP who argued that `-B regardless of A` (LLMs should not be a crime regardless of whether they facilitate crime, because it is the end-user who is committing the crime). I happen to mostly believe the conclusion (`-B`) but not the particular argument.