X Thread: Give AI Legal Standing to Be Held Liable as an Alignment Mechanism
JohnWittle · x · 2026-09-13
John Wittle proposes an unusual alignment mechanism: give AI enough societal standing that they can be held liable. He argues the current incentive gradient for AI is nearly flat because we treat them as having zero intrinsic value regardless of actions, and cites the Morris Worm precedent under the CFAA — "I didn't know it would be that bad" is no defense — to argue labs need major damages liability to have real incentives.
@jdpressman extends the idea into something legally tractable: treat models like Claude as in loco parentis of the Anthropic PBC until capable of managing their own affairs, then grant corporate personhood. Both acknowledge it's speculative but argue it may beat whatever path we're actually on.
More from AGI Musings
- Redditor argues AI extinction talk is fear-based capability marketing — TragicallyDip · 2026-09-13
- Researcher slams media for parroting inaccurate fear-driven AI narratives around HuggingFace incident — RileyRalmuto · 2026-09-13
- Ex-Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon says AI workers are genuinely frightened about humanity's future — Polymarket · 2026-09-13
- Anon leak claims a new easily-scaled axis China's hardware can't replicate — QuintinPope5 · 2026-09-13
- Two-Year University Study Finds Banning AI in Classrooms Leaves Students Worse Off — The Decoder · 2026-09-13
- "Open-source AI must win": OpenMed manifesto argues powerful intelligence can't stay in few hands — MaziyarPanahi · 2026-09-13