arXiv AI
Bathtubs, Boundaries, and Sandboxes: AI Regulatory Learning under Legal Uncertainty
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
2d ago
Designing a Boundary Negotiating Artifact for Collaborative Socio-Technical Sense-Making in AI Regulatory Sandboxes
arXiv:2609.37109v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid, unpredictable advancements in AI system capabilities has seen regulators take adaptive and experimental approaches to policymaking. Establ...
arXiv AI
Sep 1
Operationalising AI Regulatory Sandboxes: Activities, Requirements, and Technical Assessment under the EU AI Act
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 AI
Sep 7
MARLA: A Conceptual Scaffold for Regulatory Learning under the EU AI Act
The paper introduces MARLA, a conceptual scaffold for regulatory learning under the EU AI Act, outlining a five‑stage cycle—Map, Assess, Report, Learn, Adapt—focused on implementing legal requirements into socio‑technical practices across local, national, and European levels. It emphasizes that regulatory learning must translate evidence from implementation into governance and legal knowledge to support consistent interpretation, effective oversight, and adaptation as technologies evolve. The scaffold is deliberately non‑prescriptive, offering a shared vocabulary for technical and legal stakeholders, and is illustrated through two pilot case studies and a prospective national‑to‑European illustration.
arXiv AI
Jun 12
The AI Legal Specialist: A Juridically Autonomous Professional Profile for AI Governance
arXiv:2606. 12415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid global expansion of artificial intelligence regulation has generated, across multiple jurisdictions, a demand for legal expertise dedicated to AI that the market has addressed in a fragmented manner.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
A Regulatory Placebo? The Systemic Failure of Mandatory GenAI Labeling
arXiv:2608. 16470v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We examine the worldwide trend of mandatory labeling of generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) as a reactive, symbolic form of legislation triggered by technological panic and institutional responses.
arXiv AI
Sep 18
Governance-as-Code: Translating EU AI Act Technical Requirements into Executable Compliance Pipelines for Generative AI Systems
The paper introduces Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework that translates the EU AI Act’s technical requirements into 43 machine‑checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules. GaC runs within a CI/CD pipeline, producing Article‑indexed audit evidence and providing actual Rego policy code. The authors validate GaC on two enterprise deployments, showing it reproduces manual audit findings—including three penalty‑triggering violations—while reducing audit labor by about 75%.