But this method is now spent, as if someone is determined on keep using LLM, this should be pretty easy to overcome.

I suppose though new methods could be devised, but it's not "certainty" that they will catch them.

Deterrence is only part of it. It's morally instructive, it tells people that they live in a society that takes rules seriously.

Enforcement without consequences just wears down the people who are supposed to enforce it.

> Instead, certainty of enforcement is the most salient factor.

hodgehog11 is proposing effectively no enforcement

The point of a punishment is not solely to deter future crimes, it's also to actually punish the present crime though

For instance jail time is not *just a deterrence, it's physically preventing someone from committing more crimes against the public

Correct. We also have evidence both from cheating in sports and in academia that stiff punishments do not work. Many people hold the false belief that if it is easy to cheat then the punishments must be extremely severe to scare would be cheaters. It just does not work. Preventing cheating is way easier said than done.

Yup, precisely this. Doing something bad is rarely a rational commitment and cost of benefits. Likelihood and celerity of getting caught seem to be the driving factors.

But the mob wants their kick.