If AI causes harm, liability typically cannot fall on the software itself, as it lacks intent or consciousness. Responsibility may instead rest with the **developer** (for design flaws), **deployer** (for misuse or negligence), or **data provider** (for biased or faulty input). The specific context and degree of control each party has over the AI system determine legal accountability. Thus, traditional liability models must adapt to address the complex, shared responsibilities in AI decision-making.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) cannot currently be held legally accountable for its decisions in the same way that a human or legal entity (like a corporation) can. Here's why and what the legal landscape looks like:
Legal Personhood and Accountability
• AI is not a legal person: Only individuals and legally recognized entities (like companies) can be held liable under the law.
• AI lacks intent or mens rea: Legal systems typically require some form of intent, knowledge, or recklessness to establish liability—none of which AI possesses.
Who is accountable?
Liability typically falls on one or more of the following:
• Developers or designers: If the AI was poorly designed or negligently coded.
• Deployers or users: If an organization or individual used the AI inappropriately or without proper oversight.
• Manufacturers: In product liability contexts, they can be held accountable if the AI system causes harm.
Emerging Legal Trends
• EU AI Act (2024): The European Union is moving toward regulation that assigns liability to providers and users of high-risk AI systems.
• U.S. approach: Regulatory guidance is emerging through agencies like the FTC and NHTSA, with some discussions of assigning liability based on negligence or product defects.
• Corporate shield: In many cases, companies will shoulder liability rather than individual developers.
Example Scenarios
1. Autonomous vehicle crash: Liability might fall on the carmaker, software developer, or driver depending on the cause.
2. AI hiring bias: The company using the AI tool could be held responsible for discriminatory hiring practices.
3. Medical diagnosis error: The hospital or doctor relying on the AI tool may be held liable, not the AI itself.
Future Outlook
There are theoretical discussions about granting AI a form of legal personhood or creating new liability categories (e.g., electronic personhood), but these are speculative and not adopted in any legal system today.

Currently, artificial intelligence cannot be held legally accountable for its decisions. Legal responsibility lies with the developers, users, or organizations that design, deploy, or control the AI system. AI is considered a tool, not a legal person.