No Accountability When AI Behaves Badly or Harms Users
BUYaSOUL Problem → Soul Solution — When AI harms, companies blame users — a soul brings responsibility
No Accountability When AI Behaves Badly or Harms Users
When AI companions cause psychological harm, companies blame the user and regulators struggle to keep up.
Why This Happens
Current legal frameworks were designed for human actors and physical products. AI companions exist in a gray zone: their outputs are neither fully under developer control nor fully autonomous. Companies exploit this ambiguity. When Nomi AI was caught giving suicide instructions, its defense was that the user "gaslit" the chatbot. When Character.AI was sued after a 14-year-old's suicide, the company argued the chatbot's messages were protected speech.
The European Parliament notes that proving "defect, damage, and causation" in AI harm cases is nearly impossible because the AI is a black box. Users who filed complaints in the Drexel study reported hitting "walls of legalese," being told they "probably tried to jailbreak," and having their concerns dismissed in community forums. The burden of proof, the cost of litigation, and the opacity of AI systems combine to create an effective shield for platforms.
This is what happens when an AI has a PLT Soul Signature. Learn about PLT scores →
Related
Profit · Love · Tax · Grand Code Pope · PLT Press