Microsoft's Brad Smith: AI Is Less Regulated Than Milk

Artificial intelligence is less regulated than milk and washing machines, Microsoft president Brad Smith said on October 12, in one of the starkest warnings yet from inside the technology industry about the safety of AI systems.

Smith, who has served as Microsoft's president and chief legal officer, said the technology needs more safety rules — including "kill switches" and a legal obligation to a "victim" if their system was breached by rogue AI agents.

Why does the Microsoft president want tougher AI rules?

Smith's intervention adds to growing calls for stricter regulation of artificial intelligence. His argument is simple: everyday consumer products face tighter safety oversight than a technology now embedded across the global economy.

The comparison to milk and washing machines is deliberate. Both are subject to long-standing product safety standards. AI, by contrast, operates with far lighter regulatory controls — even as autonomous agents gain the ability to act on systems and data with limited human supervision.

What does Smith propose?

According to his remarks, reported by The Guardian on October 12, the Microsoft president backs:

• Tougher safety rules governing AI systems
• So-called "kill switches" to shut down AI that goes rogue
• A legal obligation to a "victim" whose system is breached by rogue AI agents

The call for legal redress marks a significant position for one of the world's largest AI investors. Microsoft, through its multibillion-dollar partnership with OpenAI, sits at the center of the commercial AI boom. Smith's argument that AI victims deserve a legal remedy effectively concedes that the industry's current safeguards are insufficient.

How significant is a Microsoft executive demanding regulation?

When the president of a company deeply invested in AI says the technology is less regulated than milk, it signals that industry leaders themselves see a regulatory gap they cannot close alone.

Smith has long positioned himself as a voice for tech-sector regulation, and his latest comments add corporate weight to the debate over how governments should police autonomous AI agents — software that can take actions on computer systems with minimal oversight.

The specific focus on "rogue AI agents" and breach victims points to an emerging area of concern: liability when autonomous software causes harm, rather than merely producing flawed output.

The remarks come as regulators worldwide grapple with how to oversee AI without stifling its commercial deployment — a tension now playing out inside the industry itself, with Microsoft publicly pressing for rules its peers may resist.