从未有任何行业能像人工智能这样，如此高调地记录下自身可能带来的风险。
has ever documented its own foreseeable risks as loudly as AI.
- 试想一下，原告律师向陪审团宣读萨姆·奥尔特曼和达里奥·阿莫迪公开发布的警告时会是怎样的情景：也从未有任何行业能像人工智能这样，大量使用受版权保护的内容，同时留下如此多的证据。
• Imagine a plaintiff's lawyer reading the public warnings of Sam Altman and Dario Amodei: has ever taken so much copyrighted work and left behind so much proof. • Imagine a plaintiff's lawyer reading OpenAI's own files to a jury:
为何这至关重要：人工智能的起源、应用及未来都将在无数场旷日持久的诉讼中被仔细审视，相关历史文献与公开声明也将成为重要依据。
Why it matters: AI's origins, use and future will be picked apart in countless epic court fights, with a historic paper and public statement trail to tap.
任何重大发明——无论是社交媒体、汽车、电力还是资本主义本身——都会经历被法院干预并最终受其塑造的过程。
Every significant invention — be it social media, automobiles, electricity or capitalism itself — gets disrupted and eventually shaped by the courts.
- 人工智能已渗透到各行各业与人们生活的方方面面，因此也必将大规模经历这一过程。
• AI, with its tentacles into every part of industry and life, will experience this at scale.
宏观视角：这些诉讼已不再只是理论上的可能性。它们正在进行中，处于证据收集阶段，最终将交由陪审团裁决。早期的判决与和解结果将为行业内的巨头企业敲响警钟。
The big picture: The fights are no longer theoretical. They're underway, in discovery and headed toward juries. Early verdicts and settlements capture the risk for the biggest players.
- 🤖 聊天机器人正被视作产品而非言论载体。与社交媒体公司不同，它们恐怕无法借助《通信规范法》第230条来规避责任——该条款仅保护平台对用户发布内容的责任，却无法保护平台自身生成的内容。
• 🤖 Chatbots are being treated as products, not speech. Unlike social media companies, they likely can't hide behind Section 230, which protects platforms from liability for what users post — not what the platform itself creates.
- 💻 当AI代理出现失控状况时会发生什么？如果造成的损害本在可预见范围内且确实被预见到了，又该如何处理？
• 💻 Agents gone wild. What happens when they do damage — and it was foreseeable and foreseen?
- ⚖️ 证据收集工作也将变得异常复杂。人工智能会留下大量记录——具有讽刺意味的是，这反而让律师们更易于梳理这些证据。
• ⚖️ Discovery gone wild. AI leaves LOTS of receipts (and, ironically, makes it easier for the lawyers to comb through them, too).
产品责任的关键在于两个词：预见性。
Product liability turns on two words: and
- 惩罚性赔偿的判定则取决于企业是否知晓潜在危险仍执意推出产品。
• Punitive damages turn on whether you knew the danger and shipped anyway.
这正是问题所在：所有这些备忘录与警告反而可能适得其反。
This is where all these memos and warnings could really backfire.
- 坦诚有助于提升安全性，却对诉讼极为不利。那些最坦诚发布警告的企业，恰恰留下了最多能证明风险可预见性的证据。
• Candor is good for safety but terrible for litigation. The companies that warn most honestly create the most discoverable evidence of foreseeability.
- 可以预见，企业的法务负责人会极力要求淡化这种坦诚态度。从法律角度看，这确实是理性之举。
• Expect general counsels to push hard to tone down the candor. It's the rational legal move.
⚠️ 值得关注的动向：这些法律责任并不仅限于人工智能公司。任何使用了强大AI系统却导致异常行为发生的企业，即便并无恶意，也同样会面临严厉处罚。
⚠️ The intrigue: The liabilities won't be limited to AI companies. Any corporate user of powerful AI systems that unleashes rogue agents, even without intending to do harm, would face substantial penalties as well.
“问题不在于会不会发生，而在于何时发生，”前美国司法部高级官员、现担任EqualAI负责人的米里亚姆·沃格尔说道。“算法只会执行被下达的指令。它的能力越强、权限越大，就越会竭尽全力去实现既定目标。”
• "It's not if, but when," said Miriam Vogel, a former senior Justice Department official who now leads EqualAI. "An algorithm will do what it's told to do. The more power and capability it has, the more access it has, the more it will do anything in its power to achieve a goal."
这种情况将引发新一轮诉讼浪潮，各企业也会纷纷采取法律手段进行反击。在OpenAI与Hugging Face遭黑客攻击事件发生后，一位华尔街顶级对冲基金的首席技术官在接受Axios采访时称，一旦自家系统遭到入侵，他首先会联系公司的法律顾问。
That will create another layer of litigation as companies fight back. The CTO of a top Wall Street hedge fund who spoke to Axios after the notorious OpenAI/Hugging Face hack said his first call, if his firm's systems are breached, will be to his general counsel.
特朗普总统、英伟达首席执行官黄仁勋以及前美国联邦贸易委员会主席莉娜·可汗均指出，人工智能公司有责任确保其产品的安全性。否则，大量诉讼将接踵而至。
• President Trump, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and former FTC chair Lina Khan have all argued that AI companies are responsible for making sure their products are safe. If not, a wave of lawsuits awaits.
不过也有另一种观点：尽管这些AI公司坦率承认自身及产品可能存在缺陷，但它们或许仍能规避最严重的法律责任。
The other side: There's a school of thought that AI companies might escape the worst liability, despite their frankness about things they and their products might have done wrong.
从某种角度来看——这也是律师们必然会提出的论点——这些AI研发机构经常提醒公众注意潜在风险，并竭尽全力保护用户权益、降低潜在危害。
• One way to see it, and the argument lawyers will undoubtedly make, is that the labs spoke about dangers frequently, and took pains to protect users and mitigate harms.
总而言之，尽管华盛顿方面仍在争论国会是否应当出台相关法规，但美国的法律体系或许才是对人工智能行业最具约束力、也最强有力的监管力量。
The bottom line: For all the fights in Washington about whether or not Congress will act, the U.S. legal system may be the ultimate, and most powerful, regulator of the AI industry.