The "tiger test" vs AI. So there is this argument that is being made that companies should be liable because the owner of a tiger is liable for the actions of their tiger even if they attempt to train the tiger and fail.
This is an utter fallacy and completely misses the point that a manufacturer isn't automatically liable because a user missuses a tool. A gun manufacturer isn't liable for the murder of an individual with that tool.
A manufacturer may be liable for negligence in the product in terms of safety, but that's a very different scenario. It's how the AI is used is the potential danger, not a failure in the design of the product.
That is to say the developer of a AI tool that is purely informational shouldn't be liable for either the misuse of that tool, but they may be liable if that AI tool is used as intended/designed and fails causing injury or similar.
Where the line is is effectively inserting AI into everything without consideration for the implementation of the tool's end use/purpose.
If you design a product that incorporates AI to assist with software development a failure in perfection of the tool is expected behavior.
If you design a product like a vehicle and connect it to AI where the product can't fail, well, then you've been negligent, and as a manufacturer you could be liable.
Mr Penguin
npub156…8ca4t
2026-10-21 23:44:22 UTC
Author Public Key
npub156e6y0257jhukdhe6pk574kp9um2cevyxpu2pgndrd9099s8vsysv8ca4tSeen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2026-10-21 23:44:22 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "060087bbb1b97530850176ee6652596f3d88a0cd99e4ed7413dc4db7a55a1447",
"pubkey": "a6b3a23d54f4afcb36f9d06d4f56c12f36ac65843078a0a26d1b4af296076409",
"created_at": 1792626262,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"proxy",
"https://social.freetalklive.com/users/mr_penguin/statuses/117481554711288639",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub"
]
],
"content": "The \"tiger test\" vs AI. So there is this argument that is being made that companies should be liable because the owner of a tiger is liable for the actions of their tiger even if they attempt to train the tiger and fail. \n\nThis is an utter fallacy and completely misses the point that a manufacturer isn't automatically liable because a user missuses a tool. A gun manufacturer isn't liable for the murder of an individual with that tool.\n\nA manufacturer may be liable for negligence in the product in terms of safety, but that's a very different scenario. It's how the AI is used is the potential danger, not a failure in the design of the product.\n\nThat is to say the developer of a AI tool that is purely informational shouldn't be liable for either the misuse of that tool, but they may be liable if that AI tool is used as intended/designed and fails causing injury or similar.\n\nWhere the line is is effectively inserting AI into everything without consideration for the implementation of the tool's end use/purpose. \n\nIf you design a product that incorporates AI to assist with software development a failure in perfection of the tool is expected behavior. \n\nIf you design a product like a vehicle and connect it to AI where the product can't fail, well, then you've been negligent, and as a manufacturer you could be liable.",
"sig": "19401a84ac99a22ffaea4fc22755df21356d415fbd7a6a1e4d51873be57146c12093317a634272e51902a9a9a9e1d03158dde00d5eb8f8563bbac367e12497d3"
}