Why do we treat AI companies differently from every other industry that touches human lives? During AGI Night at AI House Davos 2026, Max Tegmark, professor of physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute (FLI), offered a disarmingly simple answer to our AI safety anxieties. We've solved this problem before. When pharmaceutical companies want to sell a new drug, they don't get a special pass. They conduct clinical trials, measure side effects, weigh benefits against harms, and submit their findings to independent expert panels with no financial stake in the outcome. The FDA now even has frameworks for digital clinical trials. "It's super easy to do this in the digital space too," Tegmark argued. No need to legislate every possible failure mode, just require companies to demonstrate safety before deployment, the same way we do with medicine, aviation, and automotive safety. The question isn't whether we can regulate AI. It's why we've chosen not to. As Václav Havel wrote in The Power of the Powerless, the greatest threats to human dignity often come not from malice but from systems we've normalized as inevitable. There's nothing inevitable about corporate exemption. Watch the full conversation on the AI House Davos YouTube channel. Link in the comment section.
Watch the full conversation: https://youtu.be/bW3BZu-VIdM
Even toys are more regulated that AI.
very good points re: the need for controlled science when it comes to AI
Powerful analogy. We don’t trust drugs, planes, or cars — we verify them before release. Requiring proven safety, not promised safety, could realign AI incentives and strengthen public trust. Important reminder from Max Tegmark and the Future of Life Institute: what feels “inevitable” is often just unchallenged.