> Employees should never be liable for something that happens if they are using a work-supplied tool at work in the manner in which it is designed to be used.

Architects and properly-designated publishers both have potentially long liability that is to an extent independent of their future employment. (The same is true of hospital consultants and others)

In significant cases, the way you provoke companies to do the right thing (security, sticking to the facts, not cutting corners in building plans) is to make someone legally responsible if they don't. That person's liability is limited by their actions — if they can demonstrate they discharge those responsibilities appropriately, they are in the clear.

That person takes on that designated role, does the job, and is rewarded properly for the responsibility it involves. They embody the push to reduce that risk.

So an average employee using the tool as directed by their employer, they do not have liability if the company has designated someone in this role. (And in this scenario, if they have not, there would be a punitive fine for that, independent of other outcomes).

I have no particular problem with the notion that a corporate AI safety/responsibility officer is a plausible way forward. If you are delegating responsibility to a machine, someone has to be on the hook. Without such things it's a wild west with lawyers. That's not sustainable.

like it or not this is what's going to happen

This is pretty much what happened with that terrible train disaster in Spain.

You can either target systemic problems or chop of some heads to cool off the masses- and quickly go back to work.

Very well put. "But humans also" is not applicable here :-)