(When) Should We Delegate AI Governance to AIs? Some Lessons from Administrative Law

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22717v1
• Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 14:50:37 GMT
• Title: (When) Should We Delegate AI Governance to AIs? Some Lessons from Administrative Law
• Authors: Nicholas Caputo,
• Abstract summary: Advanced AI systems are now being used in AI governance.<n>Using AI for governance risks serious harms because human practitioners may not be able to understand AI decisions.<n>This paper begins to develop a principled framework for when to delegate AI governance to AIs.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advanced AI systems are now being used in AI governance. Practitioners will likely delegate an increasing number of tasks to them as they improve and governance becomes harder. However, using AI for governance risks serious harms because human practitioners may not be able to understand AI decisions or determine whether they are aligned to the user's interests. Delegation may also undermine governance's legitimacy. This paper begins to develop a principled framework for when to delegate AI governance to AIs and when (and how) to maintain human participation. Administrative law, which governs agencies that are (1) more expert in their domains than the legislatures that create them and the courts that oversee them and (2) potentially misaligned to their original goals, offers useful lessons. Administrative law doctrine provides examples of clear, articulated rules for when delegation can occur, what delegation can consist of, and what processes can keep agencies aligned even as they are empowered to achieve their goals. The lessons of administrative law provide a foundation for how AI governance can use AI in a safe, accountable, and effective way.

Related papers

• Governing AI R&D: A Legal Framework for Constraining Dangerous AI [0.0]
  Lawmakers may seek to restrict the development and release of AI models or of AI research itself.<n>We investigate three classes of potential litigation risk for AI regulation in the U.S.: the First Amendment, administrative law, and the Fourteenth Amendment.<n>We discuss existing precedent that is likely to apply to AI, which legal challenges are likely to arise, and how lawmakers might preemptively address them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T19:09:06Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Government: Why People Feel They Lose Control [44.99833362998488]
  The use of Artificial Intelligence in public administration is expanding rapidly.<n>While AI promises greater efficiency and responsiveness, its integration into government functions raises concerns about fairness, transparency, and accountability.<n>This article applies principal-agent theory to AI adoption as a special case of delegation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T07:46:41Z)
• Ethical Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary [0.0]
  AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice.<n>Courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice.<n>However, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T15:51:56Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Do Responsible AI Artifacts Advance Stakeholder Goals? Four Key Barriers Perceived by Legal and Civil Stakeholders [59.17981603969404]
  The responsible AI (RAI) community has introduced numerous processes and artifacts to facilitate transparency and support the governance of AI systems. We conduct semi-structured interviews with 19 government, legal, and civil society stakeholders who inform policy and advocacy around responsible AI efforts. We organize these beliefs into four barriers that help explain how RAI artifacts may (inadvertently) reconfigure power relations across civil society, government, and industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T00:14:37Z)
• Open Problems in Technical AI Governance [102.19067750759471]
  Technical AI governance refers to technical analysis and tools for supporting the effective governance of AI.<n>This paper is intended as a resource for technical researchers or research funders looking to contribute to AI governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T21:13:56Z)
• Challenges and Best Practices in Corporate AI Governance:Lessons from the Biopharmaceutical Industry [0.0]
  We discuss challenges that any organization attempting to operationalize AI governance will have to face. These include questions concerning how to define the material scope of AI governance. We hope to provide project managers, AI practitioners, and data privacy officers responsible for designing and implementing AI governance frameworks with general best practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T12:01:42Z)
• Public Constitutional AI [0.0]
  We are increasingly subjected to the power of AI authorities.<n>How can we ensure AI systems have the legitimacy necessary for effective governance?<n>This essay argues that to secure AI legitimacy, we need methods that engage the public in designing and constraining AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:00:01Z)
• When Should Algorithms Resign? A Proposal for AI Governance [10.207523025324296]
  Algorithmic resignation is a strategic approach for managing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by embedding governance directly into AI systems. It involves deliberate and informed disengagement from AI, such as restricting access AI outputs or displaying performance disclaimers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T13:48:44Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.