Liability of AI Companies If AI Goes Rogue

I agree with your point to a large extent. In my view, the strongest starting point is that AI is not a legal person and cannot bear liability in the way a human being or company can. It is still a tool, even if it appears autonomous, and that means responsibility should usually trace back to the humans or organisations that design, train, deploy, or control it. I also think your point about data is very important. Since AI systems depend on data gathered, selected, and uploaded by people, it makes sense to hold developers or companies accountable where the system causes harm, spreads false information, or even reproduces copyrighted material. The AI did not create itself, choose its training sources for its own purposes, or decide independently to enter the market. Those choices were made by people. That said, I would only add that liability may not always rest on the developer alone. In some cases, the company deploying the AI, the owner of the platform, or even the user operating it may also share responsibility depending on who had control, who benefited, and who failed to prevent the harm. So I agree with your conclusion, but I think accountability should be broad enough to cover everyone involved in putting the AI into use, not just the original developer. One interesting way to support that argument is the idea behind Rylands v. Fletcher: if a person introduces something potentially dangerous into use, it may be fair for that person to bear the loss when it causes harm. I do not think that rule fits AI perfectly, but as a policy idea, it strengthens the argument that those behind AI should not escape responsibility simply because the system acted unpredictably.