Internal Deployment Gaps in AI Regulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08005v2
• Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:50:14 GMT
• Title: Internal Deployment Gaps in AI Regulation
• Abstract summary: High-stakes applications can occur internally when companies deploy highly capable systems within their own organizations.<n>This paper examines how frontier AI regulations in the United States and European Union in 2025 handle internal deployment.
• Score: 4.575084788651121
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Frontier AI regulations primarily focus on systems deployed to external users, where deployment is more visible and subject to outside scrutiny. However, high-stakes applications can occur internally when companies deploy highly capable systems within their own organizations, such as for automating R&D, accelerating critical business processes, and handling sensitive proprietary data. This paper examines how frontier AI regulations in the United States and European Union in 2025 handle internal deployment. We identify three gaps that could cause internally-deployed systems to evade intended oversight: (1) scope ambiguity that allows internal systems to evade regulatory obligations, (2) point-in-time compliance assessments that fail to capture the continuous evolution of internal systems, and (3) information asymmetries that subvert regulatory awareness and oversight. We then analyze why these gaps persist, examining tensions around measurability, incentives, and information access. Finally, we map potential approaches to address them and their associated tradeoffs. By understanding these patterns, we hope that policy choices around internally deployed AI systems can be made deliberately rather than incidentally.

Related papers

• Exploring Systems-Thinking Approaches to Loss of Control Risk [0.0]
  Internal deployment of agentic AI systems for coding and research creates a sociotechnical control problem that extends beyond model behaviour.<n>We treat internal-deployment Loss of Control as the inability to reliably constrain, audit, reverse, or halt AI-mediated changes.<n>We ask whether established systems-safety methods can identify risks that model-level evaluations may miss.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T15:27:31Z)
• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Institutional AI: A Governance Framework for Distributional AGI Safety [1.3763052684269788]
  We identify three structural problems that emerge from core properties of AI models.<n>The solution is Institutional AI, a system-level approach that treats alignment as a question of effective governance of AI agent collectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T17:08:26Z)
• How frontier AI companies could implement an internal audit function [0.0]
  Internal audit could play a central role in strengthening safety governance.<n>This paper examines how an internal audit function could be designed to provide meaningful assurance for frontier AI developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-16T20:36:58Z)
• International AI Safety Report 2025: Second Key Update: Technical Safeguards and Risk Management [115.92752850425272]
  Second update to the 2025 International AI Safety Report assesses new developments in general-purpose AI risk management over the past year.<n> examines how researchers, public institutions, and AI developers are approaching risk management for general-purpose AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T03:12:56Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• AI Behind Closed Doors: a Primer on The Governance of Internal Deployment [33.99253912746621]
  Internal deployment is a key source of benefits and risks from frontier AI systems.<n>This report aims to address this absence by priming a conversation around the governance of internal deployment.<n>It discusses the risks correlated to the loss of control via the internal application of a misaligned AI system to the AI research and development pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T15:21:13Z)
• In-House Evaluation Is Not Enough: Towards Robust Third-Party Flaw Disclosure for General-Purpose AI [93.33036653316591]
  We call for three interventions to advance system safety.<n>First, we propose using standardized AI flaw reports and rules of engagement for researchers.<n>Second, we propose GPAI system providers adopt broadly-scoped flaw disclosure programs.<n>Third, we advocate for the development of improved infrastructure to coordinate distribution of flaw reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T05:09:46Z)
• 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)
• How Could Generative AI Support Compliance with the EU AI Act? A Review for Safe Automated Driving Perception [4.075971633195745]
  Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have become central for the perception functions of autonomous vehicles. The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act aims to address these challenges by establishing stringent norms and standards for AI systems. This review paper summarizes the requirements arising from the EU AI Act regarding DNN-based perception systems and systematically categorizes existing generative AI applications in AD.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T12:01:06Z)
• A Blueprint for Auditing Generative AI [0.9999629695552196]
  generative AI systems display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. Existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems. We propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems, model audits of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release, and application audits of applications based on top of generative AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T11:56:54Z)
• Trustworthy AI Inference Systems: An Industry Research View [58.000323504158054]
  We provide an industry research view for approaching the design, deployment, and operation of trustworthy AI inference systems. We highlight opportunities and challenges in AI systems using trusted execution environments. We outline areas of further development that require the global collective attention of industry, academia, and government researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-10T23:05:55Z)

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.