> Guns are explicitly exempted from liability rules.

Yes, but that only eliminates guns as an example of inherently dangerous products which are legally sold without special exemptions. I think the most constructive response is to consider another example without a special exemption - such as nail guns or rat poison.

> They’re the exception that proves the rule.

What rule does guns having a special exemption from (some) product liability laws prove? (serious question, I don't know what you mean.) It doesn't prove dangerous products cannot be sold to the general public without a special exemption. The more useful question is: "since very dangerous products CAN be sold to consumers in some cases, is ChatGPT such a product and is this one of the cases."

Fortunately, there's a highly evolved body of jurisprudence around product liability and negligence to help us tease out these details. Turns out it depends almost entirely on a combination of niggly details like sales and usage context as well as claimed features of the product along with disclaimers, disclosures, existing practice, prior knowledge of actual harm, average user competence, etc. The bottom line is, winning a judgement against OAI in this particular case is probably quite a stretch. But this AG probably doesn't really intend to try this case in court.

Is this even relevant?

I can't sue you for product liability if you strangle me but I can still sue you.

Gun manufacturers have been successfully sued for shootings before [1]; who cares if it's about "product liability"?

[1]: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/a-tough-road-for-suing-gun-mak...