The operator should ultimately be responsible for the output and actions taken by the system.

Easy.

Replace "manager" with "prompter" and "employee" with "LLM".

The manager told the employee to do something.

Afterwards, something bad happened.

Did the employee do what the manager told it to do. And the bad situation is a consequence of following those instructions? Yes -> manager's fault. No -> employee's fault.

Did the employee do something illegal (or against some other rule)? Yes -> employees fault

The thing requested was illegal to request (or against some other rule)? Yes -> Manager's fault

Note that more than one thing can be true at the same time. So even if the employee does whatever the manager told it to do. If that thing was illegal to do, both of them are at fault.

If it's the "manager"'s fault -> the prompter is liable

If it's the "employee"'s fault -> the LLM company is liable.

Easy as that. It works like any other situation.

If any machine has been properly maintained and malfunctions, the maker of that machine is liable. If the operator was using a chainsaw to cut through concrete and the chainsaw malfunctions the operator (and whoever (if anyone) ordered the operator to do that) is liable.

All of the above? ✅

Yes

1. Yes, they built them and knew the possible consequences.
2. Yes, they bought tokens for them and now certainly know the potential consequences.
3. Not if they as employees were ordered by their bosses (see 1. and 2.) to use it or face firing (unless whistleblower protections become an actual thing again, which they aren't these days -- then employees woudl be expected to blow the whistle).
4. Yes, if we can find out who they were.

All of them. there's enough liability to go around, if people want to fuck around with this garbage they can be responsible when it goes off the rails.

put enough people in prison for this and the message will be received to the rest.

FTC chairman's comments sound reasonable on the surface, but just vague enough to be meaningless.

It sounds to me like the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, but a first draft attempt to put AI issues away from the tool. Then, his definition of 'developer' is unclear.

With guns the argument is more straightforward, the tool is made to send projectiles in one direction when a user pulls the trigger.

With AI, does the end user know what the tool is capable of doing to achieve their goal when they direct it to do something?

Guns don't kill people is a ridiculous argument that no one believes, but people who like guns fall back on as a last refuge, and it is good enough to dig your heals in, so they can keep their toys. Also the 2nd amendment is the real reason gun control is hard, not arguments.

The difference is there are a lot more gun owners than AI supporters, so unbelievable arguments don't really work when you don't have a population primed to ignore the obvious fallacies.