Rogue bots? AI firms must pay up

Economic Times

a day ago

When Elon Musk's xAI was forced to apologise this week after its Grok chatbot spewed antisemitic content and white nationalist talking points, the response felt depressingly familiar: suspend the service, issue an apology and promise to do better. Rinse and repeat.This isn't the first time we've seen this playbook. Microsoft's Tay chatbot disaster in 2016 followed a similar pattern. The fact that we're here again, nearly a decade later, suggests the AI industry has learnt remarkably little from its mistakes.
But the world is no longer willing to accept 'sorry' as sufficient. This is because AI has become a force multiplier for content generation and dissemination, and the time-to-impact has shrunk. Thus, liability and punitive actions are being discussed. The Grok incident revealed a troubling aspect of how AI companies approach accountability. According to xAI, the problematic behaviour emerged after they tweaked their system to allow more 'politically incorrect' responses - a decision that seems reckless. When the inevitable happened, they blamed deprecated code that should have been removed. If you're building systems capable of reaching millions of users, shouldn't you know what code is running in production?The real problem isn't technical - it's philosophical. Too many AI companies treat bias and harmful content as unfortunate side effects to be addressed after deployment, rather than fundamental risks to be prevented beforehand. This reactive approach worked when the stakes were lower, but AI systems now operate at unprecedented scale and influence. When a chatbot generates hate speech, it's not embarrassing - it's dangerous, legitimising and amplifying extremist ideologies to vast audiences.The legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and AI companies ignoring these changes do so at their peril. The EU's AI Act, which came into force in February, represents a shift from reactive regulation to proactive governance. Companies can no longer apologise their way out of AI failures - they must demonstrate they've implemented robust safeguards before deployment.California's AB 316, introduced last January, takes an even more direct approach by prohibiting the 'the AI did it' defence in civil cases. This legislation recognises what should be obvious: companies that develop and deploy AI systems bear responsibility for their outputs, regardless of whether those outputs were 'intended'.India's approach may prove more punitive than the EU's regulatory framework and more immediate than the US litigation-based system, focusing on swift enforcement of existing criminal laws rather than waiting for new AI-specific legislation. India doesn't yet have AI-specific legislation, but if Grok's antisemitic incident had occurred with Indian users, then steps like immediate blocking of the AI service, a criminal case against xAI under IPC 153A, and a demand for content removal from the X platform would have been possible.The Grok incident may mark a turning point. Regulators worldwide are demanding proactive measures rather than reactive damage control, and courts are increasingly willing to hold companies directly liable for their systems' outputs.This shift is long overdue. AI systems aren't just software - they're powerful tools that shape public discourse, influence decision-making and can cause real-world harm. The companies that build these systems must be held to higher standards than traditional software developers, with corresponding legal and ethical responsibilities.The question facing the AI industry isn't whether to embrace this new reality - it's whether to do so voluntarily or have it imposed by regulators and courts. Companies that continue to rely on the old playbook of post-incident apologies will find themselves increasingly isolated in a world demanding accountability.The AI industry's true maturity will show not in flashy demos or sky-high valuations, but in its commitment to safety over speed, rigour over shortcuts, and real accountability over empty apologies. In this game, 'sorry' won't cut it - only responsibility will.The writer is a commentator ondigital policy issues (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric
The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best?
How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business
Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe.
Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient
Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip?
F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction
Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus