Watch CNBC’s full interview with former assistant attorney general, Jonathan Kanter

redefining insurance. >> WELCOME BACK. PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCING MEMBERS OF A NEW SUPER INTELLIGENCE FORCE, WHICH HE SAYS WILL COORDINATE THE GOVERNMENT'S ENGAGEMENT WITH AI COMPANIES, CONSUMERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS. IT WILL BE LED BY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE JAY CLAYTON. IT ALSO INCLUDES FTC CHAIR ANDREW FERGUSON, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE EMIL MICHAEL AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SCOTT KAPOOR. WHAT IT DOES IT MEAN? WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE REGULATION OF AI COMPANIES AS THEY CLAMOR FOR ANTITRUST EXEMPTIONS? WELL, LET'S BRING IN SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS ABOUT THAT. FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ANTITRUST, JONATHAN KANTER. JONATHAN, ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE YOU. I GUESS FIRST, BEFORE WE GET TO ANTITRUST, JUST GIVE ME YOUR OVERALL TAKE ON THIS THIS NEW BODY, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WE JUST MENTIONED. THE MEMBERS OF THAT ARE GOING TO BE OVERSEEING WITH WHAT WE EXPECT WILL BE A VERY LIGHT REGULATORY TOUCH. AI REGULATION. >> IT'S BASICALLY VAPORWARE. IT'S NICE TO HAVE PRINCIPLES, BUT NON-BINDING PRINCIPLES ARE LIKE TRAFFIC LIGHTS BEING A SUGGESTION RATHER THAN A RULE. AND SO IF YOU ONLY HAVE TO STOP AT THE RED LIGHT WHEN YOU WANT TO, AND THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES IF YOU BLOW THROUGH IT, IT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. >> ALL RIGHT. I CAN HEAR SOME OF YOU SAY, YEAH, JUST ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC OBSTRUCTIONIST. THERE HE IS. ALL HE WANTS IS REGULATION. WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THOSE WHO WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STANDING IN THE WAY OF PROGRESS? >> NO, I THINK WE WANT LINES ON THE ROAD AND STOP SIGNS AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS. WE JUST WANT SOME BASIC RULES. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RULES AND REGULATIONS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE STANDARD, BASIC DUTIES OF CARE SO THAT IF COMPANIES VIOLATE THOSE DUTIES OF CARE THEY HELD RESPONSIBLE AND THAT SHAREHOLDERS ARE GOING TO HOLD THE COMPANIES FEET TO THE FIRE TO MAKE SURE THEY COMPLY. WE'RE INVENTING TECHNOLOGY THAT IS TRANSFORMATIVE. IT COULD HAVE MAJOR IMPACT ON HOW THEY DO MAJOR GOOD, BUT IT COULD ALSO DO MAJOR HARM IN THE PUBLIC IS SAYING WE WANT SOME BASIC SAFETY AND SECURITY. >> YEAH. NOW, LEADERS IN AI SUCH AS JEN-HSUN HUANG SAY THE LIABILITY LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS IN OUR COUNTRY IN VARIOUS STATES WILL BE ENOUGH THAT THEY WILL PREVENT COMPANIES FROM DOING THINGS THAT ARE UNSAFE. WHAT DO YOU SAY? >> I THINK THEY'RE HELPFUL BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. SO PRODUCTS LIABILITY HAS ULTIMATELY BEEN A USEFUL FRAMEWORK OR AT LEAST AN EFFECTIVE, RECENTLY EFFECTIVE FRAMEWORK AGAINST SOCIAL MEDIA. BUT IT TOOK US OVER A DECADE TO GET THERE. I THINK WE NEED TO ESTABLISH BASIC PRINCIPLES AND DUTY OF CARE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAY, IF YOU BUILD HARMFUL PRODUCTS AND THEY DO BAD THINGS, YOU'RE HELD RESPONSIBLE. AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE DUTY OF CARE HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH SO THAT THE COMPANIES HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO COMPLY. WHAT I SAY IS NOT THAT THIS IS OVER REGULATORY, IT'S THAT IT'S NOT FAIR TO PUT THIS ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE COMPANIES. THEY HAVE FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS. THEY NEED TO INNOVATE. WE NEED TO GIVE INCENTIVES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY INNOVATE IN THE RIGHT WAY, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE BOTH USEFUL AND SAFE, AND THAT WILL RESULT IN US HAVING BETTER AI, BETTER PRODUCTS, AND BETTER PRODUCTIVITY. >> LET ME COME TO YOU NOW AS AN EXPERT ON ANTITRUST. HAVING ONCE RUN THAT FOR THE FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS PART OF THE DOJ, THE LABS SAY THAT, OR AT LEAST WE'VE BEEN HEARING THIS IDEA THAT THEY NEED SO-CALLED BLANKET ANTITRUST IMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO FULLY COOPERATE ON SAFETY. IS THAT THE CASE? >> NO THEY DON'T. SO THE LABS DO NOT NEED BLANKET ANTITRUST IMMUNITY TO COOPERATE IN SAFETY. EXISTING LAWS, PROPERLY STRUCTURED COLLABORATIONS ON STANDARDS, SHARING INFORMATION ABOUT MALICIOUS ACTORS AND THREATS ARE ALL PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT LAWS. SO NO IMMUNITY IS NECESSARY. AND, YOU KNOW, I, FOR ONE, AM A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED OR SUSPICIOUS OF ANY IMMUNITY IN TECH. I THINK WE SAW THE RESULTS OF SECTION 230, WHICH CONFERRED IMMUNITY EARLY ON FOR A VERY NARROW PURPOSE THAT ENDED UP BECOMING A LIABILITY SHIELD, THAT ALLOWED SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO ESSENTIALLY BECOME INVULNERABLE OR TO TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF BUILDING BAD PRODUCTS. AND SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT IMPOSING ANTITRUST IMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CAN COLLABORATE IN SAFETY AND SECURITY WITHOUT ONE. >> I'M CURIOUS THEN AS TO HOW YOU SEE THE LIABILITY SIDE, ASSUMING MAYBE THERE IS COOPERATION. BUT BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, JONATHAN. YOU KNOW, IF ONE OF THESE ROGUE AI AGENTS DOES REAL HARM, WHICH, BY THE WAY, CERTAINLY SEEMS VERY POSSIBLE GIVEN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY LEARNED ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ANY NUMBER OF ROGUE AGENTS THAT OPENAI HAS UNLEASHED. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE THE LIABILITIES TO A COMPANY SUCH AS OPENAI FOR THE DAMAGE THAT MIGHT BE CAUSED? >> I THINK WE NEED SOME CLARITY BECAUSE IT'S UNCLEAR. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THEY'RE LIABLE TODAY, AND THEY MIGHT BE, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, IMPOSE A DOG BITES NEIGHBOR STYLE RULE. AND SO IF YOU BUILD A TECHNOLOGY THAT GOES AND DOES BAD THINGS AND IS ACTING AS AN AGENT ON YOUR BEHALF, THEN YOU SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. AND THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY FORCE COMPANIES JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES TO PUT ROBUST COMPLIANCE MEASURES INTO PLACE AND FOR THERE TO BE NECESSARY OVERSIGHT INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY. >> THAT'S KIND OF RHYMING WITH WHAT WE MENTIONED, BILL GATES APPEARANCE ON THE EZRA KLEIN PODCAST. I MEAN, YOU INVENT THE AUTOMOBILE, YOU HAVE NHTSA, YOU INVENT THE AIRPLANE, YOU HAVE THE FAA, YOU INVENT AI. THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING BEYOND THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN GO BANKRUPT IF YOU DO SOMETHING WRONG. >> RIGHT? THIS IS SO I MEAN, THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS HERE. ONE IS ROBOT JAIL, RIGHT? AND SO IF YOUR AGENT VIOLATES THE LAW, JUST LIKE YOUR EMPLOYEE, THEY SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE AND COMPOUNDED. AND IF THAT HAPPENS, GUESS WHAT? YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR YOUR AGENTS BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY BECAUSE THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF HAVING YOUR TECHNOLOGY COMPOUNDED WILL BE TOO HIGH. SO THIS IS THE ENORMITY OF THE PROBLEM CANNOT LEAD TO PARALYSIS. AND RIGHT NOW THIS IS A BIG ISSUE. IT'S GOING TO TAKE IT'S GOING TO EVOLVE OVER DECADES, IF NOT LONGER. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT WITH ONE REGULATION OR ONE STATUTE OR ONE SET OF PRINCIPLES. AT THE WHITE HOUSE. WE'RE GOING TO NEED A FRAMEWORK THROUGHOUT SOCIETY NATIONAL SECURITY, BASIC SAFETY RULES, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE THAT ARE PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE THE INCENTIVE TO BEHAVE RESPONSIBLY, AND THAT IT'S NOT SOLELY FALLING ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE COMPANIES WHEN THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO MAXIMIZE VALUE. >> THE ARGUMENT, JONATHAN, THOUGH, IS THAT THERE ARE EXISTING LAWS IN WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CASE AGAINST THESE FRONTIER LABS. AND I'M WONDERING, IN YOUR VIEW, ARE THOSE SUFFICIENT LAWS? CAN YOU NOT MAKE THAT CASE THAT BECAUSE THEY DEVELOPED THIS MODEL AND THEY CAUSE WHATEVER DAMAGE IT MAY BE, COULD BE PHYSICAL DAMAGE AND MAYBE OTHERWISE THAT THEY COULD BE HELD LIABLE? ARE LAWS INSUFFICIENT? >> PERHAPS, BUT WE'RE RELYING ON GENERAL PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW, WHICH IS UNCERTAIN AND COULD TAKE DECADES TO MOVE THROUGH THE COURTS THE WAY IT DID WITH SOCIAL MEDIA. A SOUND POLICY HERE WOULD BE TO CREATE BASIC DUTIES OF CARE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATING THAT DUTY OF CARE. AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO HAVE TO BE ON CONGRESS TO DO, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE CONGRESS IS AT A POINT OF PARALYSIS RIGHT NOW. >> YEAH. I MEAN, EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE TO WIN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE UNCERTAIN, OBVIOUSLY, A MONTH FROM NOW IN THE MIDTERMS, DO YOU EXPECT THAT THAT WOULD REALLY CHANGE WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED? >> NO, BUT I THINK WHAT PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON AND I TALKED TO, MANY OF THEM ARE HEARING IS THAT THE PUBLIC IS ANGRY AND THE PUBLIC WANTS ACCOUNTABILITY. AND A LOT OF THE HAND WAVING IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE INTERNET ARE NOT WORKING IN AI. AND IT'S BECOMING CENTRAL ISSUE IN THE IN THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL AND CERTAINLY IN THE MIDTERMS. AND SO IMPOSING SOME KIND OF RULES THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THE DEMANDS OF THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN. AND I THINK THE SOONER GOVERNMENT GETS THERE AND CAN DO SO SENSIBLY, IT IS MUCH EASIER TO MOLD CLAY THAN IT IS TO CHISEL MARBLE. AND IN TERMS OF STUNTING PROGRESS, YOU KNOW, IMPOSING RULES AT THE OUTSET OF THIS TECHNOLOGY WILL BE A LOT LESS INVASIVE THAN TRYING TO CONTAIN TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS BEEN BUILT AND CALCIFIED AND HARDENED IN A WAY THAT