Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance

Global Policy 11, no. 5 (November 2020): 545–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890.

16 Pages Posted: 7 Feb 2021

See all articles by Peter Cihon

Peter Cihon

Center for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford

Matthijs M. Maas

Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge; University of Cambridge - King's College, Cambridge; University of Copenhagen - CECS- Centre for European and Comparative Legal Studies

Luke Kemp

Australian National University (ANU) - The Fenner School of Environment and Society

Date Written: November 28, 2020

Abstract

The international governance of artificial intelligence (AI) is at a crossroads: should it remain fragmented or be centralised? We draw on the history of environment, trade, and security regimes to identify advantages and disadvantages in centralising AI governance. Some considerations, such as efficiency and political power, speak for centralisation. The risk of creating a slow and brittle institution, and the difficulty of pairing deep rules with adequate participation, speak against it. Other considerations depend on the specific design. A centralised body may be able to deter forum shopping and ensure policy coordination. However, forum shopping can be beneficial, and fragmented institutions could self-organise. In sum, these trade-offs should inform development of the AI governance architecture, which is only now emerging. We apply the trade-offs to the case of the potential development of high-level machine intelligence. We conclude with two recommendations. First, the outcome will depend on the exact design of a central institution. A well-designed centralised regime covering a set of coherent issues could be beneficial. But locking-in an inadequate structure may pose a fate worse than fragmentation. Second, fragmentation will likely persist for now. The developing landscape should be monitored to see if it is self-organising or simply inadequate.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, AI, Governance, International Institutions, Regimes, Fragmentation, Centralization, Regime Complexity

Suggested Citation

Cihon, Peter and Maas, Matthijs M. and Kemp, Luke, Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance (November 28, 2020). Global Policy 11, no. 5 (November 2020): 545–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890. , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3756927

Peter Cihon

Center for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford ( email )

Oxford
United Kingdom

Matthijs M. Maas (Contact Author)

Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, University of Cambridge ( email )

Trinity Ln
Cambridge, CB2 1TN
United Kingdom

University of Cambridge - King's College, Cambridge

King's Parade
Cambridge, CB2 1ST
United Kingdom

University of Copenhagen - CECS- Centre for European and Comparative Legal Studies ( email )

Karen Blixens Plads 16
Copenhagen, DK-2300
Denmark

Luke Kemp

Australian National University (ANU) - The Fenner School of Environment and Society ( email )

Bldg 48 Linnaeus Way
The Australian National University
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200
Australia

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
36
Abstract Views
200
PlumX Metrics