Saul Fleischman

AI agents are increasingly making real decisions in businesses. They qualify leads, respond to customers, analyze data, and sometimes trigger actions that affect revenue or customer experience. As these systems move from suggesting to actually deciding, mistakes become inevitable.

When that happens, responsibility becomes unclear. The user configured the system, the company built the product, and the underlying models often come from another provider. If an AI agent makes the wrong call and it impacts a customer or revenue, where should accountability actually sit?

Curious how others are thinking about this. Who should be responsible in such cases, and are there any legal guidelines or draft regulations emerging around this?

I am seeing this with Lovable, Verdent, Replit: I am clear, RAG my prompts, clean them with Claude Opus 4.6, find that with tough problems, they'll tell me something is fixed or done, and it isn't. Not even close. And I'm burning costly credits, making no progress.
I'd love to learn what others are doing.
I'm building a multi-agent tool that integrates with 25+ LCNC sites and also IDEs, and yes, there are tough problems with the tool's awareness of what a user is doing in a console or fields in a browser window. I'd apprecaite it if the nocode platform simplay told me, "no can do," rather than trying one thing after another, staying stuck, and costling me $100 or more per day to keep failing.
Thanks, in advance, for your suggestions!

I know it isn't just me because I have a number of LCNC friends who, like me, won't even open Stripe before first opening ChatGPT or something similar to guide me through the maze that is Stripe.
Here's me, having just downloaded Claude Cowork, really doubtful that it is going to make any difference with the seven stuck projects I have in Stripe...