Sen. Josh Hawley’s Sept. 30 op-ed, “AI companies shouldn’t get a free pass to break things,” was right in pointing out that the country needs more clarity on who is held liable when artificial intelligence models go rogue. On paper, the Republican senator from Missouri’s idea of punishing labs or users who have indeed acted recklessly or negligently while developing or deploying AI systems is a good one.

But the devil is in the details, and it is important to see how the text in his proposal defines those who ought to be punished. An overly broad definition could deem those acting in good faith and holding themselves to the highest standards liable simply because something went wrong. They can still be considered responsible in some way, but they should not face the same punishment as a truly negligent or reckless actor.

More to the point, these episodes of misalignment should not be an excuse to advance Hawley’s broader regulatory agenda. He cites various AI proposals, ranging from picking winners and losers in the tax code to enacting likely unconstitutional age-verification mandates for AI chatbots. Hawley and his peers would be wise to focus on the urgent, narrowly defined issue at hand, rather than advance a broad and heavy-handed anti-AI regulatory agenda.

Clarifying rules on the legal liability for developing and deploying AI systems would provide valuable guidance for these companies and give the public reassurance about what they can do when something goes wrong.