Liability for AI providers is welfare-improving but harder in competitive markets, says Gans
joshgans · x · 2026-09-22
Joshua Gans argues that making AI providers liable for a share of cybersecurity losses mitigates their under-pricing incentives and is welfare-improving. Interestingly, he notes this is trickier for competitive AI providers than for monopolists who 'self-high-price.'
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
- 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
- Muse, Meta's 'Extraordinarily Privileged' AI Assistant, Has a Serious 0-Day — pavel_lishin · 2026-09-22