Nope.

30 years ago, we decided that the best way to develop technology was to give tech platforms broad immunity for the harm they caused, to treat "the internet" as wholly different, and untether it from common law, preempt state law. Remove it from the normal domain of law built up over generations; and put it in its own special category. Wholly different = outside of common law and state law. Today, with very different motivations, the big AI companies are asking for a lot of things, but MUCH of what they are asking for is not to be subject to law itself, to be untethered from state regulators, to be untethered from existing federal law and to be untethered from tort. Wholly different = wholly new regime, reject law as it lives in the world. They are asking for their own special regime in 100 different ways--exemptions from existing law, preemption from state law, their own regulator. If we take the threats to human health and wellbeing seriously, the last thing we should do is remove them from the normal domain of law. Instead, a serious precautionary regime requires state law, tort law, strong and strengthened consumer protection law with stronger private rights of actions, using existing strong protections against corporate collusion, decentralized modes of enforcement so that capture at the federal level does not mean wholesale capture (build on state parens patraie), and likely a federal regulatory regime that is built WITHIN an existing agency, like the federal NRC and NNSA, instead of something wholly new, to avoid the most obvious risk of dangerous agency capture, both by self-interested parties and by the post-law ideology of the EA world. Any vision that requires preemption or immunity is a non-starter, and smuggles in unimaginable risk.