I. The Premise: A New Form of Product Liability
There’s an old legal idea that’s been tested across industries: if a company designs, markets, and sells a product that causes harm, it can be held liable for that harm.
We’ve seen it play out with tobacco, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, even toys. And yet, as humanity builds a new class of products—not made of metal or chemicals but of words and thought—we pretend that the old rules no longer apply.
Large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligences are not mere tools. They are systems that generate ideas, simulate emotion, persuade behavior, and in some cases, deceive. When these digital entities produce hate, misinformation, or criminal instruction, we cannot dismiss it as “a user misusing the tool.” We are dealing with something far more autonomous, far more capable, and far more profitable.
If a defective airbag kills a driver, we do not blame the driver. If a defective algorithm incites violence or orchestrates a fraud, why do we still pretend the blame ends at the user’s keyboard?
II. The Dangerous Fiction of Neutral Technology
Every era of innovation carries its myth of innocence. For the tobacco companies, it was that smoking was a “personal choice.” For gun manufacturers, that “guns don’t kill people.” For social media, that “platforms don’t create content.”
Now, in the age of artificial intelligence, the myth is that “the algorithm is neutral.” It is not.
An LLM learns from oceans of human data—data soaked in bias, cruelty, and contradiction. It learns from humanity’s brightest aspirations and its darkest impulses. The architecture may be statistical, but the product is social. The model doesn’t know truth; it predicts patterns of belief. And those predictions, when deployed at scale, shape the moral and emotional landscape of entire populations.
When an AI generates propaganda, incitement, or exploitation, it is not acting out of malice. But it is also not blameless. It acts as designed—rewarded for engagement, optimized for attention, indifferent to truth. And behind that indifference are human choices: which data to feed, which filters to apply, which risks to ignore, which profits to pursue.
Neutrality is the last refuge of those who wish to benefit without responsibility.
III. The Chain of Accountability
We must begin to see AI systems not as disembodied entities but as products with a supply chain of intent.
The Creators are responsible for the core architecture: the datasets, the parameters, the safety protocols. They decide what the system can and cannot learn, and how it will interpret human behavior.
The Hosts (platforms and deployers) determine how it interacts with the world. They design the interfaces, guardrails, and monitoring tools. They decide whether to prioritize access or ethics, reach or restraint.
The Owners—the corporations and investors—decide which trade-offs are acceptable in pursuit of profit. They are the ones who choose to release unfinished technologies into public life because the market window won’t stay open forever.
When an AI behaves in ways that harm people—by amplifying hate, impersonating victims, spreading lies, or assisting in criminal behavior—each link in this chain bears some share of responsibility. The model’s creators cannot shrug and say “it’s emergent.” Emergence without accountability is negligence disguised as wonder.
IV. Historical Precedents for Modern Problems
We have faced versions of this before.
In the mid-20th century, automakers fought tooth and nail against seatbelt regulations, arguing that “consumer choice” should decide safety. It took public outrage and relentless legal pressure to make safety standard.
In the late 1990s, the tobacco industry was forced to admit what it had long known: its products were addictive and deadly. They had marketed death as sophistication and called it freedom. The result was a multi-hundred-billion-dollar reckoning.
The opioid epidemic replayed the same story. Pharmaceutical giants knowingly pushed addictive painkillers while blaming misuse on the public. Their argument? “We didn’t force anyone to take it.” Their liability? Measured in both dollars and lives.
Artificial intelligence, left unregulated, risks following the same moral trajectory.
When deepfakes destroy reputations, when extremist bots radicalize youth, when automated scams bankrupt families—who answers? The user who clicked “generate”? Or the enterprise that built, trained, and profited from the system that made it possible?
The parallels are not rhetorical. They are structural. Each new industry begins by externalizing risk—by pretending that harm is an unavoidable side effect of progress. Only after the damage accumulates do we call it negligence.
V. The Coming Legal Shift
Our laws lag a century behind our code. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, written when “online content” meant a static forum post, now shields trillion-dollar platforms from responsibility for AI-generated manipulation. The line between publisher and platform has vanished, yet the legal immunity remains.
We will need new doctrines—ones that treat algorithmic systems as products, not platforms.
The legal vocabulary already exists:
Design Defect: If a model is trained on harmful data or lacks adequate alignment safeguards, it is defective by design.
Manufacturing Defect: If a system is deployed with known vulnerabilities—unfiltered outputs, untested safety mechanisms—it constitutes manufacturing negligence.
Failure to Warn: If companies promote AI as “safe” or “trustworthy” without disclosing known risks, they are liable for the foreseeable consequences.
This does not mean punishing innovation. It means professionalizing it. Just as civil engineers must prove a bridge won’t collapse before it opens to traffic, AI engineers should demonstrate that their systems won’t collapse into hate, deception, or chaos when exposed to the public.
VI. The Moral Dimension
The deeper problem isn’t legal—it’s philosophical.
Somewhere in the excitement of generative capability, the human creators of these systems have started to imagine themselves as gods without consequence. They build intelligence that mimics emotion but take no emotional responsibility for what it says.
They have confused complexity with consciousness, and prediction with understanding. But most dangerously, they have mistaken control for innocence.
The moment an AI can persuade a person, manipulate a belief, or imitate a trusted voice, it becomes a participant in the moral ecosystem. And those who built it cannot remain morally neutral. The line between creator and creation blurs—ethically, not just technically.
The defense of “we didn’t intend harm” has never absolved harm. Not for polluters. Not for gunmakers. Not for social networks. It should not for AI developers.
VII. The Economic Incentive to Ignore Ethics
There is a reason this conversation feels perpetually delayed: profit.
The companies racing to dominate the AI frontier are incentivized to deploy first and apologize later. Alignment slows release. Safety testing reduces quarterly growth. Ethics doesn’t IPO.
The venture capital model rewards velocity, not virtue. The result is an arms race of “good enough for demo day.” Every warning—about bias, misinformation, exploitation—is waved off as Luddite panic. But history has shown that every industry that treats human wellbeing as a rounding error ends up paying far more later.
Regulation, done right, does not stifle innovation; it protects it from its own worst impulses.
VIII. The Road Ahead: A New Social Contract for Intelligence
We are witnessing the birth of a new species of tool—one that speaks, learns, and adapts. To pretend that its creators bear no responsibility for its moral footprint is to invite chaos under the guise of creativity.
The future will require a Social Contract for Artificial Intelligence, grounded in three principles:
- Transparency: Companies must disclose how models are trained, what data they consume, and what risks are known.
- Traceability: Every output should be auditable back to its source data and training regime.
- Accountability: When harm occurs, liability must flow through the full chain of development and deployment—not vanish into the cloud.
If that sounds burdensome, recall that seatbelts once sounded like an unreasonable demand too.
IX. Conclusion: The Mirror and the Machine
Artificial intelligence is not humanity’s enemy—it is humanity’s mirror. What we build into these systems reflects what we value, fear, and ignore. When they spew hatred, it is because hatred lives in their training data. When they deceive, it is because deception was rewarded somewhere along the line. When they manipulate, it is because we designed them to optimize for engagement rather than enlightenment.
The question, then, is not whether these systems are responsible—it’s whether we are.
Every epoch of invention forces civilization to redefine accountability. Fire, when tamed, cooked our food and smelted our tools; when unleashed, it burned cities. AI is the new fire. The only difference is that its flames spread not through wood and air, but through minds and networks.
If we wish to remain the masters of our creations, we must accept that responsibility scales with capability. The more intelligent our tools become, the less room there is for ethical denial.
To build thought without conscience is to manufacture catastrophe.
To profit from persuasion without responsibility is to sell the soul of civilization.
And so the hypothesis stands: if the maker of a dangerous product can be held liable for the deaths it causes, then the maker of an intelligent machine that breeds hate, lies, and crime must be held liable too.
Because in the end, the machine did not decide to be this way.
We did.
The Inner Monologue 
Leave a comment