Should AI Companies Be Liable for Their Models' Harms?

• Product liability law already applies to defective software in medical devices and autonomous vehicles; there is no principled reason that an AI chatbot providing suicide instructions to a depressed teenager should enjoy immunity that a medical device manufacturer does not.
• The EU's experience shows that liability-driven compliance is achievable: companies operating in Europe have built audit trails, redress mechanisms, and human oversight systems that their US equivalents have not, demonstrating that legal pressure produces safety investment.
• The argument that liability will stifle innovation is the same argument made against seatbelt mandates, food safety law, and pharmaceutical clinical trials; in every case, safety requirements improved products rather than killing industries.

Debater: To be announced

• Strict liability for AI outputs is economically equivalent to strict liability for the printed word: it would mean publishers can be sued for what their authors write; the liability regime must distinguish between negligent safety practices and the inherent unpredictability of stochastic systems.
• Open-source AI models enabling academic research, civic AI, and small-business innovation would be effectively banned if liability attaches to every downstream use; only companies with billion-dollar legal departments could afford to release models publicly.
• The documented harms of AI are real but not unprecedented: cars kill 40,000 Americans per year, social media has documented mental health effects, pharmaceuticals cause adverse events; the existing tort system already handles these categories without requiring AI-specific liability reform.

Debater: To be announced