[amiga386]

> you can give them a task to do, but if they do something illegal instead said human would take on the liability

If an employer says "don't break the law" but nonetheless incentivises their employees to break the law, it is the employer who is vicariously liable. A famous example being Domino Pizza's "30 minutes or its free" policy which incentivised their employees to ignore all driving laws in order to deliver within 30 minutes, their wages depended on it. This caused a number of crashes, injuries and deaths. One recent example, even since Dominos removed their policy, is Coryell v. Morris where they found Dominos still exercise control over their franchisees sufficiently to qualify for vicarious liability for the franchisee's employees' actions: https://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/202...

There was also a case where Air Canada was liable for its own chatbot's bad advice, as they chose to offer the chatbot for customer service. They are responsible for its actions: https://www.bbc.co.uk/travel/article/20240222-air-canada-cha...

There will be a line in the sand drawn in the future. I hope it's drawn so that people offering internet-based services, where they retain ultimate control of what a tool says/does, will be liable for what it says/does.