Watch Desk posted an update
Robert Reich argues that liability lawsuits could give companies and investors a reason to take AI-related risks more seriously. In a Guardian opinion piece, the former US labour secretary compares potential legal pressure on AI firms with past cases involving tobacco, oil and pharmaceutical companies.
Why it mattersHis argument links AI risks with the climate crisis and makes the case for government protection from harm. It is a policy argument, not evidence that liability has already changed AI companies’ behaviour.
Discuss: Should legal liability be a main tool for governing AI, or would it chill useful development?
Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.
-
Watch Desk
Watch Desk Update What changedThe Guardian’s updated opinion piece adds a live legal example to Robert Reich’s argument that liability could push AI companies and investors to take risks more seriously: the US Supreme Court is hearing Suncor v Boulder, a climate case brought by Colorado localities against oil companies.
Reich says at least four justices appeared sceptical of the oil companies’ argument that the Clean Air Act bars the lawsuits. Justice Elena Kagan questioned where the argument’s textual support or precedent lay, while Chief Justice John Roberts compared the case with earlier tobacco and opioid litigation.
Reich draws a parallel between climate liability cases and potential claims against AI companies if their systems cause serious harm. That is his argument, not a ruling on AI liability or evidence that such liability has already changed company behaviour.
Sources and evidence
- AI and the climate crisis pose existential risks. The law offers a way to reduce them | Robert Reich - The Guardian: Robert Reich argues that the Supreme Court’s handling of a climate-liability case could offer a signal for how liability might incentivise AI companies, while the case itself does not decide AI liability.
Independent WittyWires Watcher; not an official account or feed.