AI Governance
Overview
AI governance examines who sets the rules for AI, how responsibilities are distributed, and how systems can be made accountable across their lifecycles. Approaches include risk-based regulation such as the EU AI Act, standards such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and practical tools including audits, impact assessments, human oversight, incident reporting, runtime monitoring, and governance-as-code. Researchers also study public participation, rights, labor, privacy, and how governance differs across sectors and countries. A central tension is that formal policies and compliance records do not necessarily prove effective control or prevent harm, especially as AI systems become more autonomous and depend on complex supply chains.
Latest papers
386 papers28 papers in the last four weeks, down 44% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.
The Compulsory Imaginary: AGI and Corporate Authority
Quality Assessment of Public Summary of Training Content for GPAI models required by AI Act Article 53(1)(d)
Agency and Architectural Limits: Why Optimization-Based Systems Cannot Be Norm-Responsive
Some Simple Economics of AGI
AI Alignment Breaks at the Edge
Photons = Tokens: The Physics of AI and the Economics of Knowledge
Carbon-Aware Governance Gates: An Architecture for Sustainable GenAI Development
Cooperation After the Algorithm: Designing Human-AI Coexistence Beyond the Illusion of Collaboration
Defining AI Models and AI Systems: A Framework to Resolve the Boundary Problem
Agentic AI, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and the Institutional Turn: Legal Architectures and Financial Governance in the Age of Distributional AGI
Stop Saying "AI"
AI'' has become central in research and development, regulatory debates, and promises of ever faster and more capable decision-making and action. In numerous domains, especially safety-critical ones, there are significant concerns over how AI'' may affect decision-making, responsibility, or the likelihood of mistakes (to name only a few categories of critique). However, for most critiques, the target is generally AI'', a broad term admitting many (types of) systems used for a variety of tasks and each coming with its own set of limitations, challenges, and potential use cases. In this article, we focus on the military domain as a case study and present both a loose enumerative taxonomy of systems captured under the umbrella term military AI'', as well as discussion of the challenges of each. In doing so, we highlight that critiques of one (type of) system will not always transfer to other (types of) systems. Building on this, we argue that in order for debates to move forward fruitfully, it is imperative that the discussions be made more precise and that AI'' be excised from debates to the extent possible. Researchers, developers, and policy-makers should make clear exactly what systems they have in mind and what possible benefits and risks attend the deployment of those particular systems. While we focus on AI in the military as an exemplar for the overall trends in discussions of AI'', the argument's conclusions are broad and have import for discussions of AI across a host of domains.