[shaburn]

I am not referencing republishing the output results. That is a seperate act entirely. There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads?

[smoldesu]

> I am not referencing republishing the output results.

Okay, then what exactly are the harms you're referring to? Boneheaded implementations that need a scapegoat when it breaks?

If your system isn't accounting for the regular failure of AI, you haven't built an AI-ready system.

> There are countless examples, particularly in regulated usecases, where threads are audited. Thus, who is liable for the output of the LLM in those threads?

Whoever's idea it was to give AI control over that situation is the person who assumes liability. If a government audit reveals that someone is using an LLM to respond to emails, they're not going to blame OpenAI. These situations exist because motivated individuals, knowledgeably or not, create unreliable systems that they themselves are responsible for. The only realistic and effective stance is implicating offenders on an individual basis.

This entire post feels like you're trying to direct us towards some answer, but I'm not really getting where you're going. Who do you think should be responsible?

[wmf]

Free speech is pretty strong in the US. They can probably work around many restrictions with "this is not medical/legal/financial advice" disclaimers. It's legal for Google to give search results that are completely wrong so AI is no worse.