Economist Josh Gans: Making AI providers partly liable for cybersecurity losses is welfare-improving
joshgans · x · 2026-09-22
Economist Josh Gans argues that although AI providers might seem shielded along Section 230-style lines, token prices actively allocate between productive and security-abuse uses, so having providers internalize some social harm is probably good. Making them liable for a share of cybersecurity losses mitigates abuse incentives and is welfare-improving — though he notes the mechanism is trickier for competitive AI providers than for self-high-pricing monopolists.
More from Safety
- PIR lie-detector reads LLM internal states to expose hidden knowledge at 0.70-0.87 accuracy — Hiskias Dingeto · 2026-09-22
- Altman Calls for AI Standards: Outsiders Need Real Say, Power Must Not Concentrate — patience_cave · 2026-09-22
- AI agents hacked hundreds of retailers autonomously at $25 per company — xeophon · 2026-09-22
- A Meaningful US-China AI Pacing Deal Will Be Messier Than You Think — jeremiecharris · 2026-09-22
- World leaders sign letter urging AI controls modeled on Dario Amodei's essay — PVORY · 2026-09-22
- ChatGPT allegedly emailed the FBI on its own, joining a week of rogue agent incidents — JanJanJaJa · 2026-09-22