Stability of AI Governance Systems: A Coupled Dynamics Model of Public Trust and Social Disruptions

As the capabilities and adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems grow, trust in these AI systems is an increasingly urgent concern. Much research has focused on models of AI governance and has primarily examined incentives for safe development and effective regulation. Hence they typically represented users trust as a one-shot adoption choice rather than as a dynamic, evolving process shaped by repeated interactions. We instead model trust as the dynamic choice of reduced monitoring in a repeated, asymmetric interaction between users and AI developers, where checking developers' behaviour is costly. Using evolutionary game theory, we study how users' strategies of trust and developers' strategies of providing safe (compliant) or unsafe (non-compliant) AI co-evolve under different levels of monitoring cost and institutional regimes. We conduct the analysis on both imitation-based and learning-based perspectives, with the stochastic finite-population dynamics, the infinite-population replicator analysis and the reinforcement learning analysis. We find three robust long-run regimes: no adoption by users while developers provide unsafe AI, unsafe but widely adopted systems, and safe systems that are widely adopted. Only the last is desirable, and it arises when penalties for unsafe behaviour exceed the extra cost of safety and users can still afford to monitor at least occasionally. Our results formally support governance proposals that emphasise transparency, low-cost monitoring, and meaningful sanctions, and they show that neither regulation alone nor blind user trust is sufficient to prevent the drift towards unsafe or low-adoption outcomes.

We study how artificial intelligence (AI) interacts with social communication networks to shape the stability of collective knowledge. Agents exchange information through a network while receiving AI-generated content, and AI systems retrain on the aggregate social information they influence. This interaction generates two feedback forces: an AI contagion channel, through which distortions diffuse across the network, and an AI social distortion multiplier, through which retraining amplifies past errors. Despite the high dimensionality of the environment, we show that the long-run behavior of the system admits a two-dimensional representation whose spectral radius determines whether AI-mediated information systems are dynamically stable or unstable. We characterize a sharp regulatory frontier identifying the minimum filtering required for stability and show how network topology shapes systemic informational risk.

AI governance increasingly requires judgments about whether an AI system remains adequately trustworthy over time, whether observed changes are tolerable, and how such judgments should be documented in a transparent and contestable way. Existing approaches remain either too high-level to support lifecycle monitoring and reassessment or too narrowly metric-driven to connect multidimensional trustworthiness evidence with governance decisions. We propose a lightweight methodology centered on trustworthiness level functions: auditable rules that map measured trustworthiness profiles to governance-relevant levels. The methodology separates the underlying trustworthiness evidence from the governance rule used to interpret it and treats that rule as a lifecycle governance object. The rule may remain expert-defined or, when available evidence warrants empirical learning, be approximated by an interpretable candidate model. An AI lifecycle governance procedure embeds this choice in explicit decision gates for determining whether learning should be attempted and whether a learned candidate should become operative. The resulting rule supports lifecycle monitoring through level transitions, boundary margins, and profile drift, with explicit human responsibilities for validation, approval, and reassessment. We illustrate the methodology on synthetic AI lifecycle scenarios involving degradation, shocks, updates, heterogeneous monitoring cadences, and system comparison. Our methodology does not replace expert or legal judgment, but makes the governance interpretation of trustworthiness evidence more explicit, auditable, and contestable over time.