OpenAI backs an Illinois bill shielding AI labs from liability, even for “critical harms” like 100+ deaths or $1B+ in damage, if they published safety reports
The ChatGPT-maker testified in favor of an Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable—even in cases where their products cause “critical harm.”
WiredMaxwell Zeff
Context & Ripple Effects
This was an early fault line in Illinois’ AI-policy debate: OpenAI supported a liability-limiting approach tied to published safety reports, while Anthropic soon publicly opposed the proposed liability shield. The disagreement exposed a consequential split over whether disclosure should reduce exposure after severe failures.
OpenAI’s testimony gives the Illinois proposal a major lab backer and frames public safety reporting as the condition for narrower liability exposure, including in the bill’s defined critical-harm cases.
AI labs operating in or selling into Illinois face a clearer immediate policy choice: support a disclosure-linked safe harbor or, as Anthropic did, reject that liability framework.
Second-order effects
The proposal would make the content, timing, and credibility of safety reports commercially and legally consequential; labs seeking its protection would need to demonstrate that their reporting satisfies the statute’s conditions.
Public disagreement among leading labs increases pressure on lawmakers to choose between liability limits and more prescriptive safety obligations, rather than treating voluntary reports as a substitute for enforceable oversight.
Third-order effects
The episode points toward AI governance built around operational assurance—documented safety processes, reporting, and potentially independent verification—rather than relying solely on post-harm litigation.
If this pattern holds, states may increasingly negotiate AI rules through a tradeoff between obligations imposed before deployment and the remedies available after harm; the later Illinois move toward stronger requirements suggests liability shields alone may be politically unstable.
The trend: This is one data point in the shift from voluntary AI-safety claims toward state-level regimes that seek auditable, enforceable evidence of risk management.
OpenAI wants to be off the hook if its frontier AI models go rogue and cause 100+ deaths or more than $1 billion in financial damages. from @mzeff.bsky.social
As an Illinois resident, I say hell no. — “OpenAI is throwing its support behind an Illinois state bill that would shield AI labs from liability in cases where AI models are used to cause serious societal harms.”
Do not ever tell me that Ai proponents care one bit if you live or die. It would be much easier for them if you just died. — www.wired.com/story/openai...
www.wired.com/story/openai... The ChatGPT-maker testified in favor of an Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held liable—even in cases where their products cause “critical harm.”
OpenAI, in line with other AI companies (& their VC backers) say stuff like this: “They help avoid a patchwork of state-by-state rules & move toward clearer, more consistent national standards.” — But they don't actually want harmonization, they want freedom from accountability…
If Kellogg's proposed a bill that would limit their liability for any genocides caused by Corn Flakes, the entire company should be dissolved and a full scale investigation launched into whatever the hell they were doing with Corn Flakes. — OpenAI is telling on itself. — www.…
Here's the end-game (saying the quiet part out loud) - privatize the gains, socialize the costs (government bail-outs). — The only thing open about OpenAI is that they are so transparent about their back room deals. — https://www.wired.com/...
Scoop: OpenAI is backing an Illinois state AI bill that would shield AI labs from liability for critical harms caused by their AI models—such as mass deaths or financial disasters—as long as they weren't intentional and the labs have published safety reports on their website. [im…
Of course he backed it up after creating weapons of mass destruction and job loss. OpenAI backs bill that would limit liability for AI-enabled mass Deaths or financial disasters. The ChatGPT-maker testified in favor of an Illinois bill that would limit when AI labs can be held …
Remember when ChatGPT helped someone plan a mass shooting, and a dozen OpenAI employees notified management, and they did nothing and 8 people died? They don't want to be liable for their incompetence and role in such things, despite doing absolutely nothing to prevent it.
Shocking that they would want to support this bill. — Also: read Ronan Farrow & Andrew Marantz's New Yorker investigation into Sam Altman to understand the danger this company poses. — www.wired.com/story/openai...
Me: The default negligence framework for AI liability is inadequate to handle the risks posed by frontier AI development. OpenAI: We shouldn't even have to exercise reasonable care to get to externalize the risks we generate; putting out a safety report should be enough.