The essay reviews Matthijs Maas’s framework for global AI governance, highlighting the rapid, border‑less development of AI and the fragmented, non‑binding international responses. It argues that governance cannot rely on a single institutional blueprint but must account for the varied powers of states, international bodies, and private firms. The central challenge is shaping an evolving architecture amid actors with differing incentives and no shared plans.
arXiv:2608. 13272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A small number of firms based in two states produce the most capable frontier AI models.
arXiv:2606. 26117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems.
arXiv:2606. 07245v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI sovereignty is the extent to which a nation independently controls its artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
arXiv:2606. 28404v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence depends on large-scale compute resources and their supporting infrastructure.
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.
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.
arXiv:2606. 07536v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Frontier artificial intelligence is reshaping all aspects of society, from economic output or military capability to democratic institutions.
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.
The article argues that embodied AI poses a significant governance lag, the delay between technological deployment and institutional response. It identifies three interlinked forms of lag—observational, institutional, and distributive—and proposes a compliance architecture featuring deployment visibility, stack-level accountability, trigger-based adjustments, and automatic distributional responses. The central policy challenge highlighted is ensuring governance systems become observable, responsive, and adaptive before disruption becomes entrenched.
arXiv:2606. 12423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into critical infrastructure including healthcare, finance, energy, and defense, offers transformative benefits but also conflicts with evolving regulatory and governance frameworks.
arXiv:2407. 10247v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into corporate strategy has become critical for organizations seeking to maintain competitive advantage in the digital age.
arXiv:2607. 07612v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving from generative systems to agentic AI capable of autonomously planning and executing tasks.