I don't even think GP knows what negligence is.

Generally the law allows people to make mistakes, as long as a reasonable level of care is taken to avoid them (and also you can get away with carelessness if you don't owe any duty of care to the party). The law regarding what level of care is needed to verify genAI output is probably not very well defined, but it definitely isn't going to be strict liability.

The emotionally-driven hate for AI, in a tech-centric forum even, to the extent that so many commenters seem to be off-balance in their rational thinking, is kinda wild to me.

▲

ls612 a day ago | parent [-]

I don’t get it, tech people clearly have the most to gain from AI like Claude Code.

	▲	jqpabc123 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Computer code is highly deterministic. This allows it to be tested fairly easily. Unfortunately, code productionn is not the only use-case for AI. Most things in life are not as well defined --- a matter of judgment. AI is being applied in lots of real world cases where judgment is required to interpret results. For example, "Does this patient have cancer". And it is fairly easy to show that AI's judgment can be highly suspect. There are often legal implications for poor judgment --- i.e. medical malpractice. Maybe you can argue that this is a mis-application of AI --- and I don't necessarily disagree --- but the point is, once the legal system makes this abundantly clear, the practical business case for AI is going to be severely reduced if humans still have to vet the results in every case.