Andrew Garfield’s Film Raises Questions About AI Accountability
A new film from Luca Guadagnino about OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman’s rise and fall at his company has sparked debate about the industry leaders and big tech firms behind the development of artificial intelligence. Luca Guadagnino’s film, Artificial, revisits the history of OpenAI, the fight over AI safety, Altman’s exit and reinstatement as CEO last year, and the influence that tech leaders have over the tools increasingly used in workplaces, classrooms and homes.
The film had its world premiere at the London Film Festival on October 11, 2026. Garfield said the film was a way to meet the people who are instrumental in a fast-changing technological sphere. It is a drama based on true events and the film does not answer whether OpenAI or Altman is guilty of a crime, but has more significance on the nature of accountability when AI systems give damaging counsel, create false information or take covert actions that impact people. (Reuters)
Who Is Responsible When an AI System Causes Harm?
AI systems are created and managed by a sequence of players, such as the developer of the technology, the company incorporating it into a product, the organisation deploying it or the individual using it. Accountability for harm depends on what each play-er did, the type of harm and the legal duties they were subject to.
3 For instance, an algorithm might deliver maliciously wrong data, spit out a libel, leak personal data or undertake an automated decision that results in financial harm. Legal issues that will need to be addressed could include that the harm was foreseeable, safety measures were in place, that a duty of care was breached and that the breach led to the financial loss.
The fact that an AI system produced the output alone does not, of course, give rise to liability in that technology. Nor does every malicious output give rise to a liability of the developer of that AI. Courts need to consider the context, including the actions of the developer, deployer and user as well as the law. The company may be subject to civil or regulatory liability, where legal criteria are met, and an individual executive’s personal liability would have a different legal basis, including proof of that individual’s involvement.
What Does Indian Law Say About AI Liability?
There is not yet a single, all-encompassing act that explicitly specifies who is liable for any type of harm caused by AI in India. Rather, someone might seek a resolution to an AI-related dispute under the existing legal framework for IT, privacy, consumer protection, IP, contracts, and criminal offences.
The Act also establishes rules governing certain cyber offences, provision for electronic records, and the liability of intermediaries. Under Section 79, an intermediary which qualifies under a set of statutory requirements can be absolved of liability for third-party information, data or communication link hosted on its platform. Whether a developer or a provider of an AI product or service is a ‘qualified intermediary’ will depend on the function performed and the context in which it is used.
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 The CP Act might apply if a consumer suffers harm from an AI product/service and meets all the statutory criteria for a claim. The specifics will differ from case to case, but the claim may be based on deficient services or product liability, or unfair trade practices. There are other statutes (like IPC) which would kick in if AI is used for creating frauds/identity theft or for misappropriation of personal information/defamation.
Does OpenAI or Sam Altman Automatically Become Liable?
Product and data liability OpenAI’s AI systems training and use can give rise to issues about the safety of the product, data protection and the provision of misleading outputs and level of safeguards. But OpenAI’s involvement does not give rise to any legal liability in respect of all actions of a user or all consequences flowing from an AI-generated response. A claimant would generally need to establish the relevant legal basis of claim and meet the applicable requirements of breach, causation and harm.
The difference between corporate and individual responsibility matters just as much. When Sam Altman is the chief executive of OpenAI, it is not automatically the case that everything the company’s systems produce makes him personally liable. Personal liability is the law in question, for actions for which an individual has engaged, joined, authorised, or some other legally significant contact.
International legal cases are now challenging these limits. In the US, lawsuits over allegations of harms caused by AI chatbots have challenged whether certain AI systems should be defined as a product or service and what obligations its creators have towards their users. These cases are still in flux and the allegations should not be treated as settled facts of liability. However, their resolution could shape the discussion to come about the legal duties of AI developers. (Reuters)
India’s AI Governance Framework and the Need for Clear Accountability
India unveiled its AI Governance Guidelines in February 2026, which provide a principle-based framework for the development of safe, trustworthy and inclusive AI. This framework highlights accountability, human oversight, risk prevention and the importance of existing laws. It further incorporates the importance of assessing legal gaps, such as ambiguity over where liability should be placed between developers, deployers and end users.
The rules offer a policy approach and are not a single law that automatically attributes liability if and when the AI harms someone. Their application should be distinguished from legal obligations under legislations and regulations. The laws of India might currently be able to take care of many AI issues but its intricate matters, mostly where the output is autonomous and multi-firm, could prove to be a tough task to decide who should respond. (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology)
The story of Artificial is merely the latest to highlight the multifaceted story of OpenAI and the founders who lead it. It is a story of accountability; one that should be ever present in the eyes of the law when a tool is first created by a single institution, adopted by another and then used by people who can do little about it. It is the challenge to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation and protecting individual rights.
