Scholarlink

<p>AI governance instruments are proliferating, and so are their difficulties. Across major jurisdictions and international bodies, reform efforts built on substantially different premises encounter a recognizably similar pattern of failure. I argue that anticipatory regulatory governance rests on three <i>operational premises</i>—categorical stability, epistemic accessibility, and manageable pace—and that AI’s emergence, opacity, and velocity violate all three in compound. These premises form a distinct layer of operational preconditions, not a complete theory of governance. Reform within the existing premises reproduces the violations they produce. I call this configuration the <i>reform trap</i>: a paradigmatic lock-in at the level of operational preconditions, distinct from path dependence and policy paradigm rigidity. The pattern is convergent across five strategies in active reform—categorical regulation, process-based management, information disclosure, normative guidance, and adaptive experimentation—and persists even in the most adaptive of them. I propose three <i>premise-level substitutions</i>—outcome observability, causal attributability, and enforcement capability—each replacing a violated precondition with a weaker, design-addressable one. These differ from outcome-based and performance-based regulation, which swaps instruments within an architecture whose premises remain stable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The shared blind spot: why diverse AI governance approaches fail for the same reason

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月19日

查看全文
  • Sihyun Kim

摘要

AI governance instruments are proliferating, and so are their difficulties. Across major jurisdictions and international bodies, reform efforts built on substantially different premises encounter a recognizably similar pattern of failure. I argue that anticipatory regulatory governance rests on three operational premises—categorical stability, epistemic accessibility, and manageable pace—and that AI’s emergence, opacity, and velocity violate all three in compound. These premises form a distinct layer of operational preconditions, not a complete theory of governance. Reform within the existing premises reproduces the violations they produce. I call this configuration the reform trap: a paradigmatic lock-in at the level of operational preconditions, distinct from path dependence and policy paradigm rigidity. The pattern is convergent across five strategies in active reform—categorical regulation, process-based management, information disclosure, normative guidance, and adaptive experimentation—and persists even in the most adaptive of them. I propose three premise-level substitutions—outcome observability, causal attributability, and enforcement capability—each replacing a violated precondition with a weaker, design-addressable one. These differ from outcome-based and performance-based regulation, which swaps instruments within an architecture whose premises remain stable.