Well it already is the case that anyone can set up bots so that's not hard. The offense always seems to have the advantage there. The benefit of AI is that it allows for automated detection. I think it's not possible to create a tool which cannot be abused by an attacker. The point is right now only the attackers have the bots which means we get all the negative use cases without any benefits to the every day user.

I suppose you could make a case that if the every day user had access then it requires slightly less technical sophistication but even if we look at Steem and make the same argument? If we release the bots to everyone does it really make the situation worse? I don't think it would. I think it would allow everyone to contribute to pro-social bots.

An argument can always be made from the top down that keeping people poor and ignorant reduces unknown security risks. This as a defensive strategy I think is a bad one because it assumes there can be perfect defense against unknown attackers in an information context. I prefer the strategy of building for resilience with the expectation that there is no way to predict or defend against all kinds of attacks (it's cat and mouse). But we can build the sort of network where recovery from any attack is quicker.

If we have a network, with a shared knowledge base, and bots, which is building wisdom for us all, compounding on itself, then this would also include the area of cybersecurity. This also would include answer the questions on how to recover from attack or how to mitigate the risks which inevitably come from abuse of information. The reputation system for example if it is to be designed will have to be built from the current state of the art in terms of knowledge.