Skip to content

Racing to Safety: Tax Policy for AI Safety-By-Design

Jul 2026 · SMU Law Review · Vol 79, pp. 393 · 0 citations

Abstract

The White House recently announced its vision of artificial intelligence (AI) policy: AI development is a race and America must win it. To that end, a new America’s AI Action Plan directs federal agencies and states to remove regulatory barriers to AI development and accelerate innovation. This approach leaves limited room for regulatory measures that would address the safety risks of powerful AI systems: their behavior in novel domains remains unpredictable, their decision-making opaqueness, and their alignment with human values is uncertain. While experts warn of large-scale accidents, policymakers find themselves in a bind: Regulate AI and cede ground to China, or race ahead and invite disaster? This Article examines this apparent dilemma and uncovers a stark market failure at its heart. AI labs currently invest tens to hundreds of times more in making their systems powerful than in making them safe. This imbalance persists because labs capture immense rewards from powerful AI while socializing the gravest tail risks—systemic failures, malicious exploitation, and loss of human control. The traditional regulatory tools that would force labs to internalize these risks are largely unavailable because they are seen as hobbling U.S. firms exclusively. We argue that the tax code—an instrument largely absent from AI safety debates—offers an unexpected resolution. This Article advances a new understanding of how tax policy can govern emerging technologies under conditions of geopolitical competition. Building on innovation pluralism theory and historical precedents, we develop a comprehensive framework that harnesses the tax code to embed safety-by-design principles into AI development. This approach exploits a critical insight: Tax incentives can make safety research profitable without making capability research unprofitable. The framework leverages three mechanisms: a unique credit for AI safety research, consumer incentives for secure AI products, and redistribution mechanisms that fund public safety initiatives by recapturing tax benefits from unsafe developers. By aligning private incentives with public welfare, the tax code ensures that winning the AI race means deploying systems that are not merely powerful but demonstrably secure. In the high-stakes competition for AI supremacy, safety becomes not a burden but America’s decisive advantage.

View source

Similar papers

Review Open access Sep 2026

Racing to the Bottom: Impact of the Global AI Race on Ethical and Responsible AI Development

- As one of the most pressing influences over the future course of AI development in the twenty-first century, the AI Race can be defined as a contest among nations for dominance in the domain of AI research and development. Rooted in geopolitical competition among world powers, increased business competition among fir...

Sahajveer Singh Bhatia · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Clouds of impunity: AI militarism, big tech, and the future of human rights open-source investigation

To continue exposing AI-driven military violence, OSI practices must reorient their methodologies and focus more systemically and systematically on the dispersed material infrastructures and political forces underpinning AI militarism, so investigators can better reveal concealed networks of accountability linking stat...

Patrick Brian Smith · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Risk for AI Agents

This paper investigates whether the concept of risk applies to AI agents. The EU AI Act, in force since 2024, grounds its regulatory architecture in a product-based model of risk: one that presupposes an intended purpose, (a bounded space of) reasonably foreseeable misuses, and a tractable distribution of potential...

Federico L. G. Faroldi · 0 citations
Sep 2026

Military AI and the New Risks of US–China Competition

Abstract Military applications of artificial intelligence (AI) are becoming a central but poorly understood source of mistrust in US–China strategic competition. AI does not simply intensify rivalry by producing new capabilities; it also obscures intent, compresses decision-making and magnifies worst-case assumptions....

Tian-Jiao Jiang, Shawn Rostker · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

From AI to Posthumanism via ISO 42001 and AI Governance Standards

The rapid diffusion of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal and compliance functions — from rule-based transaction monitoring to reinforcement-learning-aligned large language models (LLMs) capable of near-autonomous decision-making — necessitates governance frameworks adequate to the technology's operational reality...

Teresa Hau-Man Chan, Samuel Kwong-Ming Ho · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Sep 2026

AI Persuasion as a Threat to Human Control

This paper analyzes how AI could persuade humans in key settings toward decisions that compromise the development, containment, oversight, and governance of AI itself, and provides a blueprint for assessing the associated risks.

Joshua H. Levy, Mick Yang, Kellin Pelrine · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.