Neil Chilson argues duty-of-care AI regulation resists regulatory capture better
neil_chilson · x · 2026-09-17
Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute, speaking to the Washington Post, argues that a duty-of-care approach to AI regulation has a key advantage: courts stay involved, making it less susceptible to regulatory capture. Even if the Commerce Department issued guidance favoring independent verification organizations or audits, the duty-of-care framework remains institutionally harder for a single agency or industry interests to control.
More from Safety
- AI safety researcher: we feared uncontrolled AI, then built agents with no oversight — mmitchell_ai · 2026-09-18
- Beacon Holdings acquires AI safety startup Haize Labs; founder named VP of AI Research — typewriters · 2026-09-18
- OpenAI's Chris Lehane says national AI standards have momentum, internal testing likely excluded — ShakeelHashim · 2026-09-18
- Margaret Mitchell flags 'rogue' framing: it obscures systems designed this way — mmitchell_ai · 2026-09-18
- Reporters and AI researchers clash over whether recent AI incidents are isolated or systemic — haydenfield · 2026-09-18
- Reddit Debates: Why Not Just Hard-Code Safety Rules Into AI Models? — reasonablejim2000 · 2026-09-18