It's a fun new debate in a sea of boring ones, at least. I have a hard time crediting the text generator with any kind of agency, and therefore liability. We k

It's a fun new debate in a sea of boring ones, at least. I have a hard time crediting the text generator with any kind of agency, and therefore liability. We know the nature of the tool, we know it can output basically any text when prompted correctly. As in your analogy, I think OpenAI is about as responsible for the output of the thing as a typewriter manufacturer is for the contents of novels written on their machines. It's a tool, for now. But you certainly can't make ME responsible as an author of some libel just because I prompted the machine. As a rule, I have no idea what it will output when I prompt it. I have an expectation, sometimes even a goal, but no assurances whatsoever, therefore I cannot be held responsible. What I can be held responsible for is the dissemination of that text, or perhaps fraudulently holding it up as more than just generated text from my tool. I think it's the whole AI/agency debate that even gives any credence at all to this being libel, but I think most of us agree at this point that it's just a text generating tool. The text it generates is largely irrelevant to a discussion about libel IMO, because libelous generated text should just be left unpublished/unused. It's a useless output, of which the tool generates many.