Tort “reform” has been a topic for as long as I can remember with lots of talk, scant effort, and few results. It now appears that AI may be tipping the scales such that real economic havoc on the major tech companies necessitates them taking an even more aggressive approach to reforming torts to their benefit.
Here’s what ChatGPT-4o said when asked:
Summarize in 1 paragraph the current legal thinking on torts as it relates to AI.
“Current legal thinking on torts as it relates to AI focuses on adapting traditional liability frameworks—like negligence and strict liability—to address harms caused by autonomous systems. Courts and scholars are grappling with how to assign fault when AI systems act independently or unpredictably, especially in cases involving self-driving cars, algorithmic decision-making, or generative AI.
There is an emerging consensus that liability may need to shift from the AI itself (which lacks legal personhood) to parties such as developers, deployers, or owners based on foreseeability, control, and failure to mitigate known risks. However, the lack of precedent and the evolving nature of AI capabilities create legal uncertainty, prompting calls for regulatory guidance and potential statutory reforms to supplement or reshape existing tort doctrines.”
Now for the twist when I asked:
As Machiavelli, who involved with AI torts has the most to lose and how might they influence the current conditions to be in their favor.
“As Machiavelli might put it:
The party with the most to lose in the realm of AI torts is not the user nor the public, but the developers and corporations who wield the means of creation and deployment. These are the new princes of the algorithmic age—OpenAI, Google, Tesla, Anthropic, and the like—whose fortunes are bound to the public’s trust and the courts’ restraint. Should liability be broadly cast, they would find themselves besieged not by foreign armies but by swarms of litigants and regulators, threatening both treasure and control.
To shape the conditions in their favor, they must act not only with cunning but foresight.
First, they should influence the framing of regulation—publicly embracing “reasonable safeguards” and “ethical AI” while ensuring such standards remain vague, thus manageable.
Second, they should push for the diffusion of liability—perhaps to users, integrators, or even the AI itself—so that responsibility is a moving target.
Third, they must embed their tools deeply within the operations of government, industry, and daily life, making their removal too costly. For when a prince binds the people to his fortunes, even his faults may be forgiven, if only to avoid collapse.
Thus, through strategy, proximity to power, and an illusion of benevolence, the prudent AI sovereign may shape a tort landscape that punishes only the unwise—and protects the throne.”
Sound familiar?