Excelent analysis! I'm really curious how you envision this framework influencing actual regulatory strategies for AI liabilities, particularly with those coordination costs challenges in such rapidly evolving markets. Your synthesis of behavioral economics here is truly insightful and so important for the field.
Great question. The framework is meant to shift regulation upstream, not add new rules. Once regulators accept that users cannot reliably adjust behavior under cognitive load, downstream tools like disclaimers stop working, and enforcement naturally moves toward design, testing, auditability, and recall—where prevention capacity actually sits.
It also explains why fragmented action can be effective. State enforcement, insurance pricing, and audit standards can realign incentives faster than comprehensive federal legislation, then converge into de facto standards that formal regulation later codifies.
Excelent analysis! I'm really curious how you envision this framework influencing actual regulatory strategies for AI liabilities, particularly with those coordination costs challenges in such rapidly evolving markets. Your synthesis of behavioral economics here is truly insightful and so important for the field.
Great question. The framework is meant to shift regulation upstream, not add new rules. Once regulators accept that users cannot reliably adjust behavior under cognitive load, downstream tools like disclaimers stop working, and enforcement naturally moves toward design, testing, auditability, and recall—where prevention capacity actually sits.
It also explains why fragmented action can be effective. State enforcement, insurance pricing, and audit standards can realign incentives faster than comprehensive federal legislation, then converge into de facto standards that formal regulation later codifies.