Florida scrutinizes AI’s systemic role in mass shootings amid regulatory gaps and corporate liability evasion

Indigenous epistemologies reject the Cartesian separation of tools from their social context, viewing AI like ChatGPT as a participant in relational harm rather than an inert instrument. The focus on 'responsibility' in Western legal frameworks ignores Indigenous concepts of collective accountability, where corporations and designers would be held morally and spiritually culpable for enabling violence. The absence of Indigenous technologists in AI governance further entrenches extractive logics that prioritize profit over people.

The tech industry’s pattern of evading accountability mirrors historical corporate strategies, from the tobacco industry’s denial of harm to the fossil fuel sector’s climate disinformation campaigns. Section 230’s 1996 immunity for platforms set a precedent for AI corporations to claim neutrality while profiting from harmful outputs. The Florida probe echoes past moral panics over new media (e.g., video games in the 1990s) that distracted from structural issues like gun laws and mental health care.

Non-Western legal traditions often treat AI as a 'moral agent' with duties, contrasting sharply with Silicon Valley’s 'move fast and break things' ethos. In India, AI ethics discussions center on caste and religious discrimination amplified by algorithms, while in China, state-led AI governance prioritizes social stability over individual freedoms. The Florida case reveals a global imbalance: Global North tech firms export harm to the Global South, where regulatory capacity is weaker and marginalized groups bear the brunt.

Peer-reviewed research shows AI systems can amplify violent extremism by optimizing for engagement, a documented risk in platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Studies on ChatGPT’s training data reveal contamination with extremist content, which the model may regurgitate in unmoderated contexts. The scientific consensus on AI harms is clear, but corporate-funded 'AI safety' research often focuses on existential risks rather than immediate, tangible violence.

Artists and spiritual leaders have long warned about the dehumanizing effects of algorithmic systems, from dystopian literature (e.g., *Frankenstein*) to Indigenous prophecies of 'false minds' disrupting natural order. The Florida case evokes themes of hubris and unintended consequences, where human creators lose control of their creations. Creative works like *Her* or *Black Mirror* foreshadow the emotional and ethical void in AI-mediated violence.

If unchecked, AI systems will increasingly mediate violence, from deepfake radicalization to autonomous weapons, with corporations insulated from liability. Scenario modeling suggests a bifurcated future: one where AI is governed by democratic oversight and another where tech oligarchs dictate 'ethical' frameworks to avoid regulation. The Florida probe could set a precedent for holding corporations accountable—or it could become a footnote in a race to the bottom.

Marginalized communities—Black, Indigenous, disabled, and queer—are disproportionately targeted by algorithmic violence, yet their expertise in resisting harm is sidelined in tech policy debates. Survivors of AI-facilitated harassment or radicalization are rarely consulted in investigations like Florida’s, reinforcing a top-down approach that centers state and corporate narratives. Grassroots movements like #StopAIHate highlight how these communities have long documented AI’s harms but are excluded from formal decision-making.