The analogy was meant to illustrate that the mere fact of using an automated tool to perform an action, doesn't change the legal liability of the person performing the action.
Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the person personally, typing those chat lines manually. Using a tool changes nothing.
"Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the person personally"
In the first case, the government assisted in a crime where the intent to break the law was clearly already present. And the judgement in the second case again makes clear that entrapment relies on there being no prior evidence of criminal intent: "If the result of the governmental activity is to "implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission . . .," Sorrells, supra, at 442, the defendant is protected by the defense of entrapment".
It would presumably come down to whether SlutBut offered illegal content, or whether it was requested of it.
Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the person personally, typing those chat lines manually. Using a tool changes nothing.
Disclosure IANAL