Instead of trying to anticipate every potential harm, AI regulation should mandate open, internationally consistent audit trails, similar to financial transaction logs. This shifts the focus from pre-approval to post-hoc accountability, allowing regulators and the public to address harms as they emerge.
Related Insights
When addressing AI's 'black box' problem, lawmaker Alex Boris suggests regulators should bypass the philosophical debate over a model's 'intent.' The focus should be on its observable impact. By setting up tests in controlled environments—like telling an AI it will be shut down—you can discover and mitigate dangerous emergent behaviors before release.
Instead of trying to legally define and ban 'superintelligence,' a more practical approach is to prohibit specific, catastrophic outcomes like overthrowing the government. This shifts the burden of proof to AI developers, forcing them to demonstrate their systems cannot cause these predefined harms, sidestepping definitional debates.
Mark Cuban advocates for a specific regulatory approach to maintain AI leadership. He suggests the government should avoid stifling innovation by over-regulating the creation of AI models. Instead, it should focus intensely on monitoring the outputs to prevent misuse or harmful applications.
Shift the view of AI from a singular product launch to a continuous process encompassing use case selection, training, deployment, and decommissioning. This broader aperture creates multiple intervention points to embed responsibility and mitigate harm throughout the lifecycle.
The UK's strategy of criminalizing specific harmful AI outcomes, like non-consensual deepfakes, is more effective than the EU AI Act's approach of regulating model size and development processes. Focusing on harmful outcomes is a more direct way to mitigate societal damage.
An FDA-style regulatory model would force AI companies to make a quantitative safety case for their models before deployment. This shifts the burden of proof from regulators to creators, creating powerful financial incentives for labs to invest heavily in safety research, much like pharmaceutical companies invest in clinical trials.
As AI capabilities accelerate toward an "oracle that trends to a god," its actions will have serious consequences. A blockchain-based trust layer can provide verifiable, unchangeable records of AI interactions, establishing guardrails and a clear line of fault when things go wrong.
For enterprises, scaling AI content without built-in governance is reckless. Rather than manual policing, guardrails like brand rules, compliance checks, and audit trails must be integrated from the start. The principle is "AI drafts, people approve," ensuring speed without sacrificing safety.
The approach to AI safety isn't new; it mirrors historical solutions for managing technological risk. Just as Benjamin Franklin's 18th-century fire insurance company created building codes and inspections to reduce fires, a modern AI insurance market can drive the creation and adoption of safety standards and audits for AI agents.
Treat accountability as an engineering problem. Implement a system that logs every significant AI action, decision path, and triggering input. This creates an auditable, attributable record, ensuring that in the event of an incident, the 'why' can be traced without ambiguity, much like a flight recorder after a crash.
