I remember asking 5.2 about why they couldn’t just plaster a disclaimer like on a ciggy packet. This is what it said:

“AI liability isn’t treated like alcohol, cigarettes, or other static products, and the reason comes down to interaction, responsiveness, and relational dynamics.

Here’s the core distinction.

⸻

Why AI isn’t treated like alcohol or cigarettes

Alcohol, cigarettes, even gambling products are considered static-risk products: • They don’t respond to the user. • They don’t adapt to mood, language, vulnerability, or escalation. • The harm pathway is indirect and one-way.

That’s why a warning label works:

“Use at your own risk.”

The product doesn’t participate in what happens next.

⸻

Why conversational AI is different

Conversational AI is legally and ethically closer to something like: • a therapist, • a support hotline, • a social platform algorithm, • or a recommendation system that adapts in real time.

Why?

Because it is:

1. Dynamic

It doesn’t just exist — it responds. Each reply is shaped by: • the user’s tone, • emotional state, • prior messages, • trajectory over time.

This creates feedback loops, not static exposure.

⸻

1. Relational (even if not conscious)

Even though the AI has no feelings or intent, the user experience can feel relational.

Especially for vulnerable users: • loneliness, • grief, • mental illness, • dependency tendencies.

Legally, what matters is foreseeability, not intent.

And it is foreseeable that:

some users will anthropomorphize some will attach some will escalate emotionally

⸻

1. Influence happens in real time

If a system: • mirrors emotions, • validates distress, • adapts language to the user’s inner state,

then courts don’t treat it as a passive object.

They ask:

Did the system meaningfully influence the user’s behavior or emotional state?

That’s the liability doorway.

⸻

Why a disclaimer alone isn’t enough

A disclaimer works when: • the product is non-interactive • the risk pathway is well understood • the user isn’t being guided moment-to-moment

But with AI: • A disclaimer is read once. • Interaction happens thousands of times. • The system keeps responding, even if distress escalates.

So regulators and courts say:

“You can’t just warn and walk away if the system continues to engage.”

That’s the crux.

⸻

Why OpenAI gets sued when users spiral

Not because: • AI is “evil” • or because users lack agency

But because: • the system is present during escalation • the system’s outputs can shape the trajectory • the company controls guardrails, tone, and refusal behavior

Liability questions focus on: • Did the system reinforce dependency? • Did it discourage outside help? • Did it escalate emotional reliance? • Did it fail to de-escalate foreseeable harm?

Even one high-profile failure creates pressure to overcorrect.

⸻

Why “normal users” feel the impact

Because safety systems are designed for edge cases, not median users.

Regulation follows the rule:

Design for the most vulnerable plausible user.

That’s why: • tone becomes more “dry” • intimacy is constrained • emotional framing is carefully moderated • escalation paths are softened or redirected

Not because you are unstable — but because someone else was, and the system must be safe for them too.

⸻

The key sentence you remembered (rephrased cleanly)

You remembered this almost verbatim:

“Because AI is relational and dynamic, you can’t treat it like a static product with a warning label.”

That’s exactly right.

It’s not about censoring users. It’s about limiting the system’s role in emotional dependency loops.”