Fortune editor Jeremy Kahn examines the growing push for strict liability, a legal doctrine that would hold AI companies responsible for harm their models cause regardless of negligence. Advocates, including a New York Times editorial and a Forecasting Research Institute survey, argue it would encourage safety practices, with survey respondents rating it more effective than federal licensing. Kahn counters that liability only applies after harm occurs, could bankrupt companies, fits poorly with open-source models, and might push AI firms toward services that compete with their own customers. He concludes that strict liability should be one part of a layered approach that also includes insurance, licensing, and government oversight.
