arXiv cs.AI· Snehalkumar `Neil' S. Gaikwad, Punya Aragula, Shiva Kruthi Palpanoori, Pratik Patekar·· 1 小时前AI 评分30
以社会为中心的 AI 治理框架：从 Niti 到 Nyaya
Between Niti and Nyaya: A Society-Centered Framework for AI Governance
AI 导读
一篇 arXiv 论文提出以社会为中心的 AI 治理框架，用个人能否获得告知、挑战决定并看到纠正来评估各地 AI 政策。研究基于对北卡罗来纳州 AI 领导委员会 9 名成员的访谈，以及来自 19 个州的 49 份 AI 治理文件的逐条分析，发现该州可见性义务已生效，但告知仅是机构义务、缺乏个人可援引的权利，AI 专属的挑战与纠正仍停留于咨询层面，并指出“先合法性后保护”是可检验的风险。
正文 · 原文
Abstract:Governments are making decisions about AI before they can measure its public effects, and those decisions determine whether a person can learn that AI influenced an outcome, challenge it, and see it corrected. Research has documented what AI governance produces: principles, strategies, registers, and audits. However, we lack shared language for understanding AI policy while it is still being made. We introduce the Society-Centered AI Governance Framework, which gives policymakers, researchers, and the public a way to assess instruments in any jurisdiction by whether a person can get notice, challenge a decision, and see it corrected. It reads a jurisdiction's instruments together by date and binding status, separates an agency duty from a right a person can invoke, and traces which later instrument must enforce each commitment. We evaluated it in North Carolina using interviews with nine AI Leadership Council members, conducted before and after the state's 2026 AI roadmap, and a provision-level reading, with human-reviewed model-assisted coding, of 49 AI governance documents from 19 states. For the state's own AI systems, we find visibility-first governance: visibility duties are in effect, notice exists as an agency duty with no right a person can invoke, and AI-specific challenge and correction remain advisory. The roadmap assigns owners and dates to the missing protections, so the gaps are documented but not yet closed. Recent federal preemption proposals focus on AI development, so recourse for a state's own systems is likely to remain a state decision. We identify "legitimacy before protection" as a testable risk of visibility-first governance and name the milestones that would test it. More broadly, judging AI policy by who can act on what it makes visible lets the field assess recourse while policy is still forming, before harm occurs.
| Subjects: | Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2611.16173 [cs.AI] |
| (or arXiv:2611.16173v1 [cs.AI] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.16173 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Snehalkumar 'Neil' S. Gaikwad [view email]
[v1]
Thu, 12 Nov 2026 02:02:00 UTC (295 KB)
来源：arXiv cs.AI · arxiv.org