In any liability action against a developer alleging that a covered product is unreasonably dangerous because of a defective design, as described in subsection (a)(1), the claimant shall be required to prove that, at the time of sale or distribution of the covered product by the developer, the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the covered product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the developer, and the omission of the alternative design renders the covered product not reasonably safe.
As someone who is not on the Pause train but would prefer a better safety culture in the industry, I like this provision from the LEAD act. It seems like it would put a pretty big incentive on all labs to make sure they are 100% up to date on all safety techniques before deployment.
My only concern would be that we may be forced into making bad tradeoffs when an “alternative design” is declared reasonable. I could imagine something made via “The Most Forbidden Technique” being seen as a reasonable alternative design because it improves end user safety, or tradeoffs which were monstrously horrible for model welfare but slightly improved user safety outcomes.
As someone who is not on the Pause train but would prefer a better safety culture in the industry, I like this provision from the LEAD act. It seems like it would put a pretty big incentive on all labs to make sure they are 100% up to date on all safety techniques before deployment.
My only concern would be that we may be forced into making bad tradeoffs when an “alternative design” is declared reasonable. I could imagine something made via “The Most Forbidden Technique” being seen as a reasonable alternative design because it improves end user safety, or tradeoffs which were monstrously horrible for model welfare but slightly improved user safety outcomes.