> Once that was out in the wild it was only a matter of time before someone productized it, but there was no conceivable world in which nobody decided to...

By this logic, we cannot blame anyone who is the agent of anything that we deem to be inevitable. Just because it is eventually going to happen, that means you are completely non-culpable for being the person who does it. This could obviously be extended into justifying pretty much anything.

Yeah but I think that's precisely what makes it fuzzier than a zero-sum blame game. Given that this technology was going to be in public hands no matter what, the how matters more than condemning the first visible target. Instead of ChatGPT, the first wide use of this tech could have been a private endeavor to secretly kill the internet. The fact that anyone can see and use it, and learn it's hallmarks, arguably helps innoculate some of the populace against the worst things it could be used for. We're able to sit around and complain that the discourse has been poisoned by robots instead of blindly wondering why otherwise-indistinguishable fellow humans are all saying "delve" suddenly.

I'm not sure I have a specific point here other than that I think it's interesting that he became a target, not necessarily that he's actually blameless.