We don’t blame companies selling 3D Design software or 3D printers or mortar and cement, or graph paper and pencils. When people abuse those tools and build huts or houses or bridges that fall down, we usually blame the user for not having appropriate professional qualifications, accreditation, and experience. (Very occasionally we blame bugs in simulation software tools).
AI is a tool. It’s not intelligent, and it works at a much bigger scale than bricks and mortar, but it’s still just a tool. There’s lots we can blame AI companies for, but abuse of the tool isn’t a clear-cut situation. We should blame them for misleading marketing. But we should also blame users (who are often highly intelligent - eg doctors) for using it outside their ability. Much like doctors are fed up of patients using AI to try to act like doctors, software engineers are now finding out what it’s like when clients try to use AI to act like software engineers.
I largely agree, but if a company sold cement explicitly claiming that they will replace every job in the entire construction industry, that the cement is able to plan, verify, and build on its own, without supervision, and that any layperson can now create PhD level bridges with that cement without any input from or verification by professionals, some liability would definitely fall on the company selling that cement under these pretenses.
> We should blame them for misleading marketing.