AI Deployment and Cyber Governance Failures in Public-Sector Organizations: A Typological Analysis

Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.

Firms are deploying more capable AI systems, but organizational controls often have not kept pace. These systems can generate greater productivity gains, but high-value uses require broader authority exposure -- data access, workflow integration, and delegated authority -- when governance controls have not yet decoupled capability from authority exposure. We develop an analytical model in which a firm jointly chooses AI deployment and cybersecurity investment under this governance-capability gap. The central result shows a deployment paradox: in high-loss environments, better AI can lead a firm to deploy less when capability is deployed through broader authority exposure under weak governance. Optimal deployment also falls below the no-risk benchmark, and this shortfall widens with breach-loss magnitude and with the authority exposure attached to more capable systems. Governance investment that reduces breach-loss magnitude shrinks the paradox region itself, while breach externalities expand the range of environments in which deployment is socially constrained. Governance maturity is therefore not merely a constraint on AI adoption. It is a condition that shapes whether capability improvements translate into productive deployment.

Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources. That pressure has intensified with general-purpose AI (GPAI): AI built on large language models that can be directed by prompt alone to perform an effectively unbounded range of tasks. We argue that the properties that make these models attractive - their generality, accessibility, and low deployment cost - undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued. The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI, and the mitigations that guidance documents prescribe presuppose exactly what GPAI removes. Accuracy cannot be quantified over unbounded outputs. Bias cannot be disaggregated when outputs are free-text judgements rather than categorical predictions. Explainability gives way to the appearance of explanation, and accountability erodes as outputs are optimized to persuade. We develop this through the case of policing, where the consequences of governance failure are most severe, and show why the same failure is likely to recur across other public services. The two mitigations that dominate policing AI strategy - expert evaluation and human-in-the-loop oversight - both rest on assumptions that GPAI violates. Safety assurance thus shifts from an intrinsic feature of building an AI tool to an optional add-on. We recommend a clear taxonomic distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documentation, a preference for technological parsimony, a pause on operational deployment of GPAI in policing until adequate evidence exists, and a coordinated national safety infrastructure with the authority to generate that evidence and determine when responsible deployment is achievable.