Re: Theory and Reality
No, I agree with Chris, it's perfectly clear.
Using your example - the person who's liable is the person who used the gun.
If you're the neighbour who was shot, you sue the person who used the gun for shooting you (just varying slightly: if they didn't own the gun, you might also sue the owner if they were negligent - left it on the table for their kid to grab)
Now, lets change the scenario.
You leave your gun on the table, noone touches it, but it discharges and shoots your neighbour through the wall.
- The neighbour sues you, your gun injured them
- You might then sue the person who sold you a faulty firearm to recoup your costs
- They might then sue the supplier for shipping a dangerous batch
- Stretching to extremes, the supplier might find their designer was negligent and introduced a safety flaw as a result, and so sue them (more likely, fire them and settle).
The flow for most damages is the same, at least where stuff has been sold legally (if the gun shop sold that gun to your neighbour despite them being a felon, you might also sue the gun shop).
In the case of your bio/chem/nuke example, assuming it has been legally sold (which in turn, assumes it *can* be legally sold) then the flow would be exactly the same.
In the case of AI, you'll sue the person who deployed it (they harmed you). My point in my original post (which on a re-read wasn't entirely clear) is that the person who deployed it should retain the right to then sue their supplier.
i.e. the flow should still be
* you sue the local council (say)
* the local council sues Palantir (or whoever)
What absolutely shouldn't happen is
* You complain to the council
* They say "sod off, talk to Palantir"
* You complain to Palantir
* They say "sod off, talk to the council"
Or indeed, that you as an individual are expected to take on the well resourced supplier as a result of someone else's decision to deploy.