Yeah a company causing mass death or other disasters is maybe the single clearest signal that they should go bankrupt and someone else should take over (if the tech is really that important).

> I know I should be used to people openly lying with no consequence, but it still amazes me a bit.

Well that makes two of us. Character seems to mean nothing today.

I think it's good for CEOs of powerful companies to make statements about how they don't want too much personal power and it's important to ensure everyone does well, even and perhaps especially if there's reason to suspect they don't believe it. Saying it doesn't solve the problem, but it helps create a permission structure for the rest of us to get it to actually happen.

Incendiary and false headline aside, no sane person would suggest that a hardware store that sold an axe that was used by an axe murderer should be held liable unless that store knew what was about to unfold.

Unless AI companies knowingly participate in murder plots, they should not be liable.

Is Microsoft liable for providing Notepad, a product which can be used to write detailed and specific mass murder plots?

Is Toyota liable for selling someone a car that is later used for vehicular manslaughter?

Liability should depend on your participation in the event, of course. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy an axe, or a car, or use the internet at all. A closer analogy is ISPs not being liable for copyright infringement done by users, and subsequently not being required to police such activity for rights holders.