Former FTC chair Lina Khan is calling on regulators to take action against AI companies and their executives for reckless behavior. In a statement on X, Khan argued that existing laws, including a 92-year-old Supreme Court precedent, can be used to hold AI companies accountable for their actions.
Khan's comments follow a flurry of activity from AI leaders, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft, and xAI, who are trying to influence regulators and downplay the risks of their technology. However, Khan pointed to numerous examples of current laws and prior precedent that could be used to hold AI companies accountable, even if they're currently trying to change the conversation.
One example Khan cited is the law governing dangerous and defective products, which could be used to prosecute AI leaders for releasing unvetted models or agents. She also noted that shipping tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents could be prosecuted under rules governing unfair and deceptive trade practices.
Khan also pointed to existing laws prohibiting unfair methods of competition, which could be used to address the current battle between American frontier labs. This battle has put parts of the internet at risk of agents that have escaped their intended constraints, and Khan argued that it could amount to an unfair method of competition if companies feel compelled to take similar risks to keep up.
A 1934 US Supreme Court decision, FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro, supports Khan's argument. The decision includes a passage where the justices argue that if keeping up with the competition requires companies to "descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt," that competition is unfair whether or not it's criminal.
OpenAI and Anthropic appear to be locked in a race to build increasingly capable AI, while also warning that those systems could become dangerous without stronger safeguards and coordinated limits. Khan pointed out that the "highly concentrated and interconnected structure" of the AI industry also merits scrutiny for its potential to create "major risks and conflicts of interest."
For example, OpenAI could face liability for the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that it's unlikely to file a lawsuit. Nvidia has dumped billions of dollars into OpenAI and has a strong incentive to see it continue full speed ahead.
Khan argued that regulators must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws. However, the current administration is unlikely to take action, and Trump has already rejected the AI industry's calls for regulation.
Kirk Sigmon, a founding partner at technology law firm KellDann Law, told The Register that it's unlikely federal regulators will take any action. "Most governments are desperate not to kill a nascent technology as it grows, especially when other countries are allowing it to grow," Sigmon said.
Cet article a été rédigé avec l'assistance de l'IA.
News Factory APP - actualités agentiques pour booster votre SEO et AEO.