The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
arXiv:2607. 14782v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms.
The paper "Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act" outlines a detailed framework for implementing AI Regulatory Sandboxes (AIRS) under the EU AI Act. It maps the sandbox lifecycle into 29 activities, distinguishes between a Core AIRS and an Extended AIRS that includes an AI Technical Sandbox (AITS), and derives 15 infrastructural and governance requirements linked to these activities and provider obligations. The authors also introduce the Sandbox Configurator, an open‑source tool to instantiate AITS environments, aiming to provide structured workflows for regulators, robust evaluation methods for experts, and a transparent compliance pathway for AI providers.
arXiv:2608. 19278v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally.
The paper argues that the commonly cited gap between ethical principles and AI practice is not merely a matter of implementation or compliance, but arises from the complex institutional and professional contexts in which AI actors operate. Through interviews with designers and governors of anti‑trafficking AI systems, it identifies four interconnected moments—perception, judgement, situated action, and socio‑technical materialisation—through which ethical concerns are recognised, weighed, and either realised or sidelined. The authors contend that responsible AI governance must build epistemic infrastructures that transcend these constraints, enabling the knowledge of affected communities and potential harms to be effectively integrated into design and governance.
arXiv:2605. 16281v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail.
The paper introduces the AIRD/AIPD framework, a dual taxonomy that categorises AI’s democratic risks (threats to autonomy, fairness, public discourse, institutions, and trust) and its positive contributions (enhancing efficiency, accessibility, security, informed citizenry, transparency, accountability, inclusive dialogue, and evidence‑based policymaking). Grounded in democratic principles and the European Commission’s Trustworthy AI requirements, the framework offers an operational process for identifying contexts, classifying effects, mapping to governance mechanisms, and defining responsible actors, illustrated with examples on electoral misinformation and public service allocation.
The paper argues that AI governance should rely on ISO-like interoperability protocols rather than solely on jurisdiction-specific laws. It proposes standardized AI nutrition labels that include metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to enable machine‑readable risk communication across borders. These protocols aim to reduce regulatory fragmentation, lower barriers for SMEs, and build public trust while allowing modular evolution with technology.
arXiv:2606. 14594v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted software development has moved from line-level autocomplete to agents that can plan changes, edit files, and submit pull requests with limited human supervision.
The paper introduces LAAF, a Layered Accountability Architecture Framework for Large Language Model (LLM) applications, developed through a systematic review of 122 primary studies and 12 regulatory documents. It identifies five accountability dimensions and four families of mechanisms—technical controls, human oversight, organisational governance, and documentation/traceability—evaluated across maturity levels. The framework maps onto major standards such as the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and sectoral guidance, highlighting gaps in human oversight, accountability metrics, disciplinary alignment, and empirical validation.
arXiv:2606. 01417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Turkey's e-Government Gateway (e-Devlet) serves over 68 million registered users with more than 9,200 government services, and is increasingly integrating artificial intelligence into citizen-facing applications such as chatbot assistants and eligibility assessments.
arXiv:2608. 15417v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used.
arXiv:2605. 23922v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes a lifecycle governance regime for high-risk AI systems built around ex-ante conformity assessment, post-market monitoring, and re-assessment upon "substantial modification.