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.

Consumers can easily re-prompt a chatbot, but enterprises cannot afford mistakes like shutting down the wrong server. This high-stakes environment means AI agents won't be given autonomy for critical tasks until they can guarantee near-perfect precision and accuracy, creating a major barrier to adoption.

To introduce AI into a high-risk environment like legal tech, begin with tasks that don't involve sensitive data, such as automating marketing copy. This approach proves AI's value and builds internal trust, paving the way for future, higher-stakes applications like reviewing client documents.

Early internet users feared online payments until the HTTPS encryption standard provided a secure, trustworthy process. Similarly, broad AI adoption requires process standards for safety and risk management to build the public and enterprise trust necessary for a boom in the AI-enabled economy.

Despite AI models showing dramatic improvements, enterprise adoption is slow. The key barriers are not capability gaps but concerns around reliability, safety, compliance, and the inability to predictably measure and upgrade performance in a corporate environment. This is an operational challenge, not a technical one.

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.

In sectors like finance or healthcare, bypass initial regulatory hurdles by implementing AI on non-sensitive, public information, such as analyzing a company podcast. This builds momentum and demonstrates value while more complex, high-risk applications are vetted by legal and IT teams.

A key argument for getting large companies to trust AI agents with critical tasks is that human-led processes are already error-prone. Bret Taylor argues that AI agents, while not perfect, are often more reliable and consistent than the fallible human operations they replace.

Both humans and AI make mistakes. Instead of claiming AI is perfect, a more effective argument in regulated fields is that AI makes fewer mistakes and helps humans catch their own errors more quickly. This shifts the focus from perfection to improved safety and efficiency.