In 1754 BCE, King Hammurabi of Babylon etched a radical idea into stone: accountability. His code declared that if a builder\u2019s negligence caused a house to collapse, killing its owner, the builder would face consequences. This week (10-11 February 2025), as policymakers come to Paris to discuss AI regulation, they should be reminded of this 4,000-year-old principle: legal responsibility is on those who develop, deploy, and benefit from AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Back to legal basics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hammurabi\u2019s code wasn\u2019t about houses; it was about human responsibility. Roman law, the Napoleonic Code, and modern legislation echo this truth: the law regulates relations among people, not tools themselves. When horses revolutionised 19th-century life, we didn\u2019t invent \u201chorse law.\u201d Instead, courts applied property, liability, and contract rules to disputes among people using horses. The same logic applied to the internet. As legal scholar Frank Easterbrook quipped in 1996, there is no \u2018law of the horse,\u2019\u201d thus, there is no need for \u201cinternet law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n This logic extends to AI. If an algorithm defames someone, existing libel laws apply. If a self-driving car malfunctions, product liability rules hold manufacturers accountable. The issue isn\u2019t a lack of laws\u2014it\u2019s a lack of will to apply them to AI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key problem: Section 230\u2019s immunity shield<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The key problem in AI regulation is the spirit of the legal anomaly: Section 230 of the 1996 US Communications Decency Act. This law, designed to protect fledgling internet platforms, grants them near-total immunity for user-generated content. Imagine if Hammurabi\u2019s builder could dodge blame by claiming, \u201cThe house built itself.\u201d That\u2019s precisely what Section 230 allows: platforms evade responsibility for social media content and, nowadays, for AI-generated deepfakes, harassment, or fraud hosted on their systems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Restoring accountability\u2014making companies liable for deploying harmful AI\u2014would resolve most issues without new regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Long-term risks: Vigilance, not hysteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Proponents of AI regulation often cite apocalyptic scenarios: rogue algorithms posing an existential threat to humanity. But fear is a poor policymaker. The precautionary principle\u2014acting only when risks are very likely to occur\u2014should guide us. Recent attempts to deal with perceived long-term risks of AI via controlling the \u201cprocessing power\u201d of AI systems have already failed. DeepSeek, a compact AI model rivalling giants like ChatGPT, proves that the legal limitations of AI hardware and algorithms are futile. Instead, focus on concrete harms: use existing laws to penalise AI-enabled discrimination, fraud, or copyright theft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Discuss ethics but focus on law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The AI ethics industry has exploded, with over 1,000 ethical codes, declarations, and guidelines adopted by businesses, governments, and international organisations. While ethical discussions aren\u2019t inherently harmful, they risk becoming a distraction. Law is the enforceable minimum of ethics<\/strong>\u2014and no amount of philosophical debate can replace its teeth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ethics frameworks for AI are like safety seminars for arsonists: well-meaning but futile without consequences. Focus on the law first.<\/strong> When AI harm occurs, ask not, \u201cWas this algorithm ethical?\u201d but \u201cWho broke the law?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Enforce existing and invent new AI rules exceptionally<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jovan Kurbalija, AI governance pyramide<\/p>\n\n\n\n Think of AI regulation as a pyramid: at its base lie hardware and algorithms\u2014too distant for the impact of AI on society and difficult to regulate. Leave them be. The middle tier? Data. Here, we already possess robust tools: enforce existing privacy laws like the GDPR. Better yet, crack down on AI platforms scraping copyrighted books, art, or music to train AI systems without permission\u2014intellectual property law already forbids this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The apex is where real urgency lies: AI\u2019s public impact. When algorithms discriminate in hiring, distort markets, or spread defamation, existing frameworks\u2014consumer rights, anti-bias statutes, tort law\u2014are more than sufficient. Need to adapt? Let courts apply existing rules to AI as they have been doing for internet cases over the last three decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Humans rule, machines follow<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n AI is a tool, like a hammer or a horse. Hammurabi didn\u2019t regulate hammers; he held builders accountable. We need no \u201cAI law\u201d because the law already binds the humans behind the machines. If we discard the logic of Section 230\u2019s misguided immunity and recommit to timeless principles\u2014liability, transparency, and justice\u2014we\u2019ll govern AI just fine. After all, 4,000 years of legal wisdom can\u2019t be wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n About the author:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jovan Kurbalija<\/strong> is Executive Director, DiploFoundation & Head, Geneva Internet Platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" February 17, 2025 By Jovan Kurbalija From Hammurabi to DeepSeek and ChatGPT In 1754 BCE, King Hammurabi of Babylon etched a radical idea into stone: accountability. His code declared that if a builder\u2019s negligence caused a house to collapse, killing its owner, the builder would face consequences. This week (10-11 February 2025), as policymakers come […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":7234,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-7229","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uncategorized"},"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blockwind.news\/china\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Jovan-Kurba.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blockwind.news\/china\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Humans-rule.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n