UC Davis

An opening salvo of lawsuits in US courts has begun holding AI companies accountable through independent doctrinal routes: Product liability and agency law cut as swords, while the shields of Section 230 immunity and First Amendment doctrine begin to crack. This Perspective points out that these converging paths share a unifying principle, built on the very engineering architecture of machine learning (ML) itself. Every ML system, across all variants, is constituted by a human-specified objective function before learning begins. Training data, deployment context, user interaction, and postdeployment oversight add further layers of deliberate human intention traceable to identifiable actors. AI output is therefore not the expression of a single speaker but a composite of layered human intents. It takes a village to raise an AI, and everyone in that village bears a duty of care. This transforms AI accountability from a philosophical puzzle into a tractable legal inquiry: Trace the chain of intentional design decisions across the ML pipeline, grade each actor’s responsibility by their intent’s specificity and foreseeability, and apportion liability accordingly, following the standard three doctrine-neutral questions (attribution, causation, apportionment). Sufficient for most cases, four gaps remain: who owes what share when many hands build one system, proving fault inside an opaque model, harms that surface only after deployment, and remedies that match the technology’s pace. Targeted reforms drawing on environmental, vaccine, and financial regulatory precedents can close these gaps without requiring new legal categories, AI speech rights, AI legal personhood, or defining AI consciousness.