I have no clue why people are so confused about any of this: The owner makes the decision, or pays a CEO/politician to make the decision. Owner is somebody vested with that right, for not particular reason. Could be ownership through capital. Could be voting rights in a country. Could be the son of a king.

It does not matter if the CEO is an AI or a human. In either case, of course they can make decisions -- and be held responsible. Not in any emotional sense (that we seem to want to bake into the concept for added confusion), just that if you are not satisfied with the result, you can replace the human or AI.

I am not saying that this is a fun vision of anything, but why are we making it more complicated than it is? The parts are all there and explained.

AI companies are all limited liability corporations of one sort or another, and the liability of the owners for any decisions is … limited.

> emotional sense (that we seem to want to bake into the concept for added confusion)

My understanding is that 'emotional' sense emerged organically in LLMs and was not intentionally baked in.

As silly as it may seem, the ways emotions come through in our words do seem to have an effect on agents. Likely because they were trained on human writing, most of which cannot be separated from the emotions of the writers any more than your emotions can be separated from your logic & reasoning abilities.