Menin asks about strict liability for frontier AI
Menin cites an expert's tiger analogy that keepers are liable when dangerous animals escape, and asks whether frontier AI is abnormally dangerous and whether existing laws suffice; Castillo-Madrid says existing laws apply and SpaceX is open to common-sense, technically feasible regulations.
One legal expert that we had at our hearing last week testified that, quote, whoever keeps a tiger is liable for injuries or deaths when it escapes, however strong the cage, end quote.
His point, obviously, was that governments often impose strict liability.
I know you indicated you are a lawyer.
Governments often impose strict liability on abnormally dangerous activities because even...
Reasonable precautions cannot eliminate the risk of serious harm.
This expert testified that frontier AI development belongs in that category since leaders of the major AI developers have acknowledged that they don't yet know how to align the most capable systems
so that reasonable care, that standard of reasonable care cannot truly eliminate the risk.
Do you agree with that premise?
Yeah, we're responsible for following the law and existing laws applied to superintelligence and using superintelligence is not a legal defense.
So you believe the existing laws are sufficient and that new laws are not necessary to regulate AI?
We're open to working with policymakers like yourselves and others around the country and internationally to make sure that we're putting in place common sense, technically feasible regulations.