Due to the particularity of generative artificial intelligence infringement, accurately determining the type of infringement liability in the current attribution principles requires first determining its legal positioning. The legal positioning of generative artificial intelligence as a service form rather than a product form exists because it does not meet the definition of “product” in traditional product liability, and the damage caused by its output information usually does not directly threaten personal safety. Therefore, strict product liability rules should not be applied. This definition is beneficial for encouraging technological innovation and avoiding the unfair phenomenon of users intentionally inducing infringement and demanding developers to take responsibility. To achieve fairness and scientificity in the determination of responsibility, it is recommended to adopt a mechanism of multiple differentiation of responsibility subjects, and allocate responsibility based on the specific roles of technology developers, operators, and users in the infringement chain. Especially for the determination of the fault of service providers, an objective standard of duty of care should be adopted. By applying the responsibility framework of network service providers through analogy and introducing dynamic attribution principles and risk diversification mechanisms, it can provide institutional space for the healthy development of the generative artificial intelligence industry while safeguarding the rights and interests of victims.