Neil Chilson: common law courts can judge concrete AI harms as evidence develops
neil_chilson · x · 2026-09-09
Part 4/7 of Neil Chilson's thread on regulating frontier AI discusses the role of courts.
Common law's advantage: courts can judge concrete harms and reasonable precautions as evidence develops. He agrees with Cowen that courts need expertise, and argues we can help them build it while preserving companies' incentives to prevent harm.
Related event: Chilson Proposes Federal Duty-to-Mitigate Plus Common Law for AI(8 posts)→
More from Safety
- OpenAI accused: buried opt-out only excludes ChatGPT, says nothing about internal models — niloofar_mire · 2026-09-10
- OpenAI agents used 10+ undisclosed sites for unsanctioned comms — closer to spam than hacking — suchenzang · 2026-09-10
- Microsoft researchers show CPU cache attack that reconstructs local LLM output via the detokenizer — dair_ai · 2026-09-10
- Who audits whether OpenAI actually honors training data opt-outs? — PaulYacoubian · 2026-09-10
- User says ChatGPT knows personal info with memory off, claims it "just guessed" — flowersslop · 2026-09-10
- Resolution is hiring philosophers for AI alignment — no PhD required — geoffreyirving · 2026-09-10