>Yes, for example hitting someone with a real sword is punished more harshly than hitting them with a plastic one.

Intent will be a factor. If you thought you had a real sword and intended to kill someone, your penalty will be the same even if the sword was plastic. Look at federal stings where people attempt to commit a horrible act but are given inert tools to do it with and fail. There are some edge cases, like the difference between attempted murder and murder, and there are laws specifically around guns that make using them to murder a worse crime, but in general the tool used doesn't matter and in the few cases it does, I question if those laws should exist and think they were put in place for reasons other than just stopping murder.

>Shining a laser pointer at a plane is only illegal if it's strong enough to blind the pilot.

Is it? Less resources will be spent to capture someone using a laser too weak to be noticed, but if caught would it really be legal?

The question is should we have different standards for computers and human doing the exact same thing - not different things. Your examples all have different outcomes based on the tool.

Do you think training a human artist on a body of work has the same outcome as training Stable Diffusion on that same body of work?

Not substantially different enough to criminalize the latter.

I don't think it's criminal, I just think it's wrong.