Asking this in good faith - you touched on this on your pod, about how gun manufacturers can’t be sued for people misusing guns, and alluded to how complex of an issue it is for manufacturers of products to be sued when said products are misused. Why should this be treated differently, if at all?
But you can get sued if you sell a gun that, perhaps, has a pretty decent chance of exploding in somebody's hand when they try to fire it. This product, in its intended use, is hurting people. A lot.
Guns also don't whisper instructions to their users.
Look up the case Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, it’s loosely similar. That one hinged on Carter urging Conrad Roy to return to his truck to asphyxiate in carbon monoxide. Need to re-read the transcripts for Chat GPT, (and they are heinous) - but did it urge Adam to try again?