[digging]

Human CEOs generally aren't held liable for their actions, so why would AI need to be? Once again, I think we're just smoothing out a wrinkle here.

[SauntSolaire]

I know this is more of a throwaway cynical quip, but this is a biased line of thinking. CEO's are, for obvious reasons, more likely to do things they wouldn't be held liable for, versus do things which would see them likely to be punished. So executives might, for example, get away with things by successfully skirting the line of legality.

Say an AI CEO blatantly crosses this line, now who is liable?

[from-nibly]

It's a cheese touch situation. Last human to make a decision.