Cited by 33Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property

Future Shock: Generative AI and the International AI Policy and Governance Crisis

Open access
Leslie, David, Perini, Antonella Maia·2024·Harvard Data Science Review

Abstract

Crisis 5 stakeholders from across industry, academia, government, and civil society, and from around the globe, had made concerted efforts to develop standards, policies, and governance mechanisms to ensure the ethical, responsible, and equitable production and use of AI systems.However, as we then show, despite these ostensibly supportive activities and background conditions, several primary drivers of future shock converged to produce an international AI policy and governance crisis in the wake of the dawning of the GenAI era.Such a crisis, we argue, was marked by the disconnect between the strengthening thrust of public concerns about the hazards posed by the hasty industrial scaling of GenAI and the absence of effectual regulatory mechanisms and needed policy interventions to address such hazards.In painting a broad-stroked picture of this crisis, we underscore two sets of contributing factors.First, there have been factors that have demonstrated the absence of various vital aspects of AI policy and governance capability and execution-and thus the absence of key preconditions for readiness and resilience in managing technological transformation.These include prevalent enforcement gaps in existing digital-and data-related laws (e.g., intellectual property and data protection statutes), a lack of regulatory AI capacity, democratic deficits in the production of standards for trustworthy AI, and widespread evasionary tactics of ethic washing and state-enabled deregulation.Sec…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/99608f92.88b4cc98

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a context of international diplomatic and economic tension, the non-binding nature of soft law raises concerns over its ability to attract stakeholders and encourage their compliance, contributing to concerns of a crisis of global AI governance.

    “In a context of international diplomatic and economic tension, however, it is argued that the non-binding nature of soft law raises concerns over its ability to attract stakeholders and encourage their compliance, contributing to concerns of a crisis of global AI governance (Leslie & Perini, 2024).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leslie, D., & Perini, A. M.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • The Alan Turing Institute (GB)
Venue
Harvard Data Science Review
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2024-05-31
Issue
Special Issue 5
ISSN
  • 2644-2353 (ISSN-L)
  • 2688-8513
OpenAlex
W4399205591
Cited by
33
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3
FWCI
13.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Harvard Data Science Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/Z505584/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
Keywords
generative AI, AI policy, AI governance, future shock, model scaling, industrial scale-up, systemic risk, AI regulation, regulatory capacity, data protection law, intellectual property law, AI misuse, model opacity, emergent capabilities, democratic deficit, computational cost, data centralization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review