> Whoever made the decision was it to implement them as an actor, most likely?

Directly, the holders of the DAO tokens. That’s what this case is about. Those holders may have further claims against the people who implemented the code or AI. But the liability begins with the general partners, i.e. the holders of the governance tokens.

Will be interesting to see the first judgements enforced against holders of a DAO.

Yeah, booby traps are the first example I can think of illegal automation that comes to mind where the property owner is liable. Setting up something and not pulling the trigger yourself doesn't absolve you.