The way it's phrased it sounds like there is a lot of doubt. I think it is more like: the fog of public understanding of AI could give a creative lawyer a toeho

The way it's phrased it sounds like there is a lot of doubt. I think it is more like: the fog of public understanding of AI could give a creative lawyer a toehold in a trial. I mean, strong AI is still impressively far off, and we will continue to think of these things as "products" that the maker carries a certain liability for. Also the user has to employ the product in a way that does not show indifference to the risks of harming others. If it becomes less predictable what they will do (as they become smarter) it becomes more of a manufacturer liability. If you command your robot to wield a chainsaw around town, I believe you would be accepting more liability (although the argument may be made that the robot not refusing was a manufacturer's defect.)