AI companies could soon be protected from most lawsuits under new GOP bill
Artificial intelligence companies could be protected from mistakes their software makes as long as they abide by specific disclosure requirements under a new bill put forward by a Republican senator.
The proposed bill aims to ensure professionals such as doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, engineers and others who use AI programs retain legal liability if their work contains errors.
However, AI developers would need to publicly state how their systems work.
Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming introduced the legislation on Thursday, dubbed the 'Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act.' It would be the first of its kind if it passes, the senator's office said.
The bill would not apply to self-driving vehicles or developers who act recklessly or engage in misconduct, according to NBC News.
'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI — in fact, it requires AI developers to publicly disclose model specifications so professionals can make informed decisions about the AI tools they choose to utilize,' the senator's office said in a statement to the outlet.
'It also means that licensed professionals are ultimately responsible for the advice and decisions they make. This is smart policy for the digital age that protects innovation, demands transparency, and puts professionals and their clients first.'
Other lawmakers are working to jump ahead of the liability curb when it comes to businesses implementing artificial intelligence. States are working to apply standards, but part of President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes a clause barring them from doing so for at least 10 years.
Last week, Senate Republicans suggested changing the clause to block federal funding for broadband projects to states that regulate AI, NBC News reported.
Lawmakers across the aisle have previously opposed banning states from passing regulations throughout the next decade.
As the AI race continues, tech CEOs have warned that enacting such policies could prevent further advancements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
33 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump promises to respond with 'full strength and might' of US military if Iran attacks America
U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday said the U.S. had "nothing to do with" Israel's attack against Iran but warned that any attack against the U.S. would be met with the "full strength and might" of the U.S. military. "The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight," Trump wrote on Truth Social in the early morning hours of Sunday. "If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before," he continued. "However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!" Trump's comments came hours after the Israel Defense Forces claimed responsibility for a series of strikes on the headquarters of the Iranian Defense Ministry and a nuclear project, while Tehran unleashed a fresh barrage of deadly strikes. "The IDF completed an extensive series of strikes on targets in Tehran related to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons project," the IDF wrote on X. "The targets included the Iranian Ministry of Defense headquarters, the headquarters of the SPND nuclear project, and additional targets, which advanced the Iranian regime's efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon and where the Iranian regime hid its nuclear archive." Despite Trump's statement, Iran says it has evidence that the U.S. was involved in the attack. "We have solid proof of the support of the American forces and American bases in the region for the attacks of the Zionist regime military forces," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told foreign diplomats in a meeting broadcast on state TV. The attacks traded by Israel and Iran represented the latest violence since a surprise offensive by Israel two days earlier seeking to decimate Tehran's nuclear program. At least 10 Israeli victims were killed and at least 180 were injured in Iranian missile strikes overnight, while casualty figures were not immediately available in Iran, where Israel targeted Tehran's Defense Ministry headquarters as well as locations it alleged were associated with the country's nuclear program. The Israeli military alleged the locations were "related to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons project." U.S. intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly said Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon before Israel unleashed its offensive targeting Iran starting on Friday. Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed that Iranian missiles targeted fuel production facilities for Israeli fighter jets, although this has not been acknowledged by Israel. Planned negotiations between Iran and the U.S. over Tehran's nuclear program were canceled amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, raising questions about when and how an end to the fighting could come.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left
As President Trump was leaning toward appointing Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court five years ago, some advisers shared doubts about whether she was conservative enough. But he waved them away, according to someone familiar with the discussions. He wanted a nominee religious conservatives would applaud, and with an election approaching, he was up against the clock. Soon after Justice Barrett arrived at the court she began surprising her colleagues. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. assigned her to write a majority opinion — among her first — allowing the seizure of state property in a pipeline case, according to several people aware of the process. But she then changed her mind and took the opposite stance, a bold move that risked irritating the chief justice. In another early case, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to further his decades-long quest to expand the role of religion in public life, she preferred a more a restrained route, setting off a clash in their approaches that continues. And in a key internal vote, she opposed even taking up the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and the federal right to abortion, though she ultimately joined the ruling. Now Mr. Trump is attacking the judiciary and testing the Constitution, and Justice Barrett, appointed to clinch a 50-year conservative legal revolution, is showing signs of leftward drift. She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president. Conservative decisions 100% 91% 84% 80% 60% Liberal decisions 40% 20% 2020-21 term 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 Conservative decisions 100% 91% 84% 80% 60% Liberal decisions 40% 20% '20-'21 term '21-'22 '22-'23 '23-'24 Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times 100% Alito 80% Thomas Kavanaugh Gorsuch 60% Roberts Barrett 40% Jackson Kagan 20% Sotomayor 2020–22 2022–present 100% Alito 80% Thomas Kavanaugh Gorsuch 60% Roberts Barrett 40% Jackson Kagan 20% Sotomayor 2020–22 2022–present Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times 100% Kavanaugh 80% Roberts Thomas Alito 60% Gorsuch Kagan Sotomayor Jackson 40% 20% 2020–22 2022–present 100% Kavanaugh 80% Roberts Thomas Alito 60% Gorsuch Kagan Sotomayor Jackson 40% 20% 2020–22 2022–present Nonunanimous decisions that were orally argued and signed Source: Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, Washington University in St. Louis; and Michael J. Nelson, Penn State The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Senator's ‘We All Are Going to Die' Gaffe Becomes Rallying Cry for Democrats
A one-sentence gaffe from Iowa's junior senator has become a line of attack against Republicans nationally, with Democratic fundraising solicitations, political ads, social media and T-shirts now highlighting her words heading into the midterm elections. Sen. Joni Ernst's response of 'we all are going to die' to a constituent who was complaining about proposed Medicaid cuts in President Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' has also helped produce a 2026 GOP primary challenger for her and prompted several Iowa Democrats to announce bids for her seat.
