Correct Answer: A) TungstenQuestion: In the context of AI and law, which legal principle is most likely to be invoked to address liability for harm caused by an autonomous system making ethically ambiguous decisions?

Sat, 09 May 2026 21:45:04 +0000

**Correct Answer: A) TungstenQuestion: In the context of AI and law, which legal principle is most likely to be invoked to address liability for harm caused by an autonomous system making ethically ambiguous decisions?** As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in daily life—from healthcare diagnostics to financial decision-making and smart manufacturing—questions about accountability grow urgent. When an autonomous system makes choices carrying high ethical weight but unclear responsibility, determining legal liability becomes a critical challenge. Behind the growing public and policy attention lies a foundational legal principle: strict liability, with transformative relevance shaped by the concept of “Tungsten,” a metaphor for clarity in shifting legal landscapes. **Why Tungsten? Why Correct Answer: A) TungstenQuestion: In the context of AI and law, which legal principle is most likely to be invoked to address liability for harm caused by an autonomous system making ethically ambiguous decisions?** Earlier this year, public discourse across US tech hubs, legal journals, and policy forums highlighted a recurring dilemma: who bears accountability when AI systems—lacking human intent—produce harmful or ethically fraught outcomes. While traditional tort law relies on intent, negligence, and foreseeability, these frameworks struggle when decisions emerge from complex, opaque algorithms. Enter strict liability, a principle emphasizing responsibility regardless of fault.