Good response, you covered some things I haven't thought of. > but for some reason everyone seems to think that “an AI did it” somehow means no human is on the

Good response, you covered some things I haven't thought of. > but for some reason everyone seems to think that “an AI did it” somehow means no human is on the hook Yeah, "an AI did it, not a human" wouldn't be the reason it would be thrown out. A human did ultimately cause it to happen by creating/using a tool, and people often get trapped in the fallacy that an AI's calculations are like an earthquake (or other natural event), or on the other end of the spectrum like an independent human with thoughts and feelings. Both of these views would be pretty legally ridiculous to try to argue (though transhumanist legal framework could change this, hopefully only after it's demonstrated such a framework is actually needed) What makes it likely to be ignored by the courts is the unlikely series of events needed to meet the standard. There would need to be some sort of false statement purported as fact or negligence, which is difficult because OpenAI is openly saying that they've made an AI product that sometimes spews nonsense and can't be trusted. There would need to be some sort of damages, which is unlikely because most journalists are unlikely to publish AI hallucinations as some sort of whistle-blowing attack on someone's reputation, so it's unlikely to influence a large number of people to believe the claims in the first place. And in some jurisdictions there may need to be malice involved. These standards are difficult to meet even in cases that seem pretty clear-cut. Maybe a future scenario will meet this standard if everything goes wrong.