This is line of reasoning is a pro-tech disease: "Dangerous thing X has always been technically possible, but logistically prohibitive. Since we have not explicitly done anything to prevent thing X in the past, new technology that removes all logistical barriers to doing thing X is not at all problematic."
It is a problem that our only guardrails to thing X were that human labor was too slow and costly to do it at scale. That we built no other guardrails does not imply that thing X is not a problem, nor that automating thing X at scale is no worse than doing it manually. Moreover, if the only additional guardrail you support is that every time thing X occurs, it goes to the courts, then the reasonable bad actor only needs to make the rest of their operation efficient enough to profit before they go to trial.
It is a problem that our only guardrails to thing X were that human labor was too slow and costly to do it at scale. That we built no other guardrails does not imply that thing X is not a problem, nor that automating thing X at scale is no worse than doing it manually. Moreover, if the only additional guardrail you support is that every time thing X occurs, it goes to the courts, then the reasonable bad actor only needs to make the rest of their operation efficient enough to profit before they go to trial.