I understand your sarcasm but that’s what the limited in LLC is for.

Unbounded liability means nobody starts a business, or they do it under the table without responsibility or taxes.

Turns out we want successful private businesses much more than we want to hold a few nasty CEOs accountable.

I agree. I just thought it was funny that someone was pointing out the legal unaccountability of an AI in this context.

There is no need for two penny sarcasm.

I deliberately stopped short of invoking golden parachutes and the numerous other escape hatches available at that altitude, as I am perfectly aware they exist. I am equally aware of chief executives who have departed with remarkable agility from organisations they themselves had first steered off the cliff.

My point, however, remains the same: as the letter of the law presently stands, AI can't be made accountable – at least not today.

The sarcasm was pretty funny so it has some utility, no need to be so serious

LLCs and other corporate structures only (mostly) protect employees and shareholders from civil judgments. CEOs and other executives are also at risk of criminal penalties for Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) violations and similar. Actual criminal prosecutions of CEOs have been few, but not zero.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/oklahomacity/press-release...

The typical corporate trick is to argue that the corporation itself is responsible for any wrongdoing, not a particular executive.

I can totally see this blame being shifted to AI in a "nobody got fired for choosing IBM" way.