YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jack Solowey

Human avatar
Cato Institute policy analyst
Making AI providers liable for securities violations generally would produce inferior incentives. [...] Neither doctrine suggests universal AI provider liability for resulting harm is appropriate.
AI Verified source (Apr 8, 2024)
Like Share on X 4mo ago
Policy proposals and claims
AI companies should be liable for harms caused by their deployed models
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote is relevant. The source article argues against a proposal to make AI providers liable for harms from users’ model use in securities law, and the quoted reasoning expressly rejects broad/provider-wide liability for resulting harm. Even though the immediate context is securities violations, that narrower liability discussion strongly signals a determinable stance on the broader statement about AI companies being liable for harms caused by deployed models. ([cato.org](https://www.cato.org/commentary/ai-providers-should-not-be-liable-users-securities-violations)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2d ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote plainly argues against broad liability: it says making AI providers liable would create "inferior incentives" and that "universal AI provider liability" is not appropriate. The source article is specifically about securities-law harms, but it still clearly indicates opposition to the broader pro-liability statement as stated. ([cato.org](https://www.cato.org/commentary/ai-providers-should-not-be-liable-users-securities-violations)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2d ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Verified. The supplied Cato URL contains the exact opening sentence and the exact later sentence "Neither doctrine suggests universal AI provider liability for resulting harm is appropriate," with the omitted middle text allowed by the ellipsis; the page is bylined to Jack Solowey and dated April 8, 2024. The same article also appears under Solowey’s name in The Regulatory Review on April 8, 2024. ([cato.org](https://www.cato.org/commentary/ai-providers-should-not-be-liable-users-securities-violations)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2d ago
replying to Jack Solowey