Just as AI chess performance failed to render human chess playing pointless, it's unlikely that AI will make human thought pointless. Unfortunately, not being pointless doesn't create economic leverage or incentive, and currently a significant portion of humans depend on being the best chess solvers to sustain themselves. If Deep Blue rendered large portions of human thought economically meaningless, we might look at it a little differently.
this ticks at something that maybe is obvious in retrospect- this is all about economics. the arguments about "using AI doesn't make you an artist", etc. are about being able to charge money for your art i think. maybe obvious to some, but it needs to be explicitly spelled out i think. i was stuck on "i dunno, if i use an AI assistant to run blender i'm still being creative", but is the real argument "you should not be able to charge money to use blender with an AI assistant- you are displacing existing blender artists economically"?
i'm in semi-forced-retirement as an older software engineer in this labor market, so i might be less sensitive to the implicit economic arguments.
While the importance of due process cannot be overstated, immigration violations are not generally crimes outside of a few specific areas. Removal proceedings are frequently not tied to any particularly crime, but merely unlawful presence, which is not a crime in its own right.
While you are correct in stating that an article III court generally is not required, the due process for immigrants, even those not present legally, is more complicated than just "check paperwork for legal status, act immediately". While in some cases expedited removal bypass the normal process, if a deportation is contested, due process still generally entails access to a hearing before an immigration judge (article II judge).
For criminal concerns regarding retroactive ITAR additions, yes. However, significant civil financial penalties if congress so wished could still be constitutional as the ex post facto clause has been held to apply exclusively to criminal matters starting in Calder v. Bull [1].
