A legal expert has argued that traditional litigation may offer a more effective framework for addressing the risks posed by artificial intelligence than regulatory oversight. Judge Glock, writing in a recent analysis, suggests that allowing individuals to pursue legal claims for damages against companies could provide a stronger deterrent against harmful AI practices while still fostering innovation.

According to Glock, the competitive pressures of the marketplace compel companies to maintain good relationships with their customers, but this dynamic alone does not account for potential harms inflicted on non-customers or broader society. Historically, lawsuits have played a crucial role in holding businesses accountable for unforeseen dangers, forcing them to anticipate and mitigate risks before they materialize.

Glock contends that bureaucratic regulatory agencies lack the nuanced understanding and incentives that AI developers possess, limiting their ability to effectively prevent harm. Such regulatory bodies may also cater to the interests of a narrow segment of stakeholders, potentially stifling innovation or imposing inappropriate constraints on the industry.

By contrast, the prospect of legal liability encourages companies to carefully evaluate dangerous scenarios and implement safeguards. Litigation, in this view, aligns corporate incentives with public safety more directly than centralized regulation.

This perspective underscores an ongoing debate about how best to govern emerging technologies like AI, weighing the benefits of market-based mechanisms against the potential need for formal oversight. While proponents of regulation emphasize the importance of proactive government involvement to manage complex risks, others advocate for the judiciary's role in balancing innovation with accountability through established legal processes.