Peter Lee

Yeah, this is a very complicated, complex question.

And I think the law in most, in all countries, I don't think is settled on this.

There's a couple of maybe interesting discussion points here.

The first is academic lawyers sometimes call this the many hands problem.

Because across the value chain, you've got lots of different actors when it comes to deploying AI systems.

So you'll have the frontier model companies, you'll have the systems developers, you'll then have the companies that might be deploying them, and then you'll have the users themselves.

And there'll be many more actors along the chain there.

And so trying to work out when something goes wrong who is accountable is very complex.

And it's also made more complicated by the fact that these different actors are often in different jurisdictions, which have different approaches to AI law.

I think the common law jurisdictions will, in time, start to give us some more clarity around this.

Particularly, I think we're expecting a lot of litigation over the next five years or so as people start to become impacted by these technologies.

That could be because we see job displacement.

So you might get actions from trade unions.

You might get class actions at an environmental level from communities.

And I think all of these things are going to shape the way we perceive accountability in this space.

Governments are really struggling to manage this technology and regulate it.

And there's various different models.

I think Singapore have got some very interesting guidelines now that they've released this year about agentic technologies in particular.

There are some emerging, quite powerful, and I think very useful global standards, which are sometimes described as soft law.

So they're not mandatory law, but they're standards created by groups of experts that organizations can implement, and in some cases get certified against.