Evaluating Bounded Superintelligent Authority in Multi-Level Governance: A Framework for Governance Under Radical Capability Asymmetry

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.02720v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 04:26:18 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Bounded Superintelligent Authority in Multi-Level Governance: A Framework for Governance Under Radical Capability Asymmetry
• Abstract summary: This paper identifies that unstated assumption, constructs a framework that makes it testable, and shows that it is load-bearing.<n>The framework specifies necessary conditions along six dimensions (legitimacy, accountability, corrigibility, non-domination, subsidiarity, and institutional resilience)
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Governance theory has always presumed cognitive comparability between governors and governed. This paper identifies that unstated assumption, constructs a framework that makes it testable, and shows that it is load-bearing. The framework specifies necessary conditions along six dimensions (legitimacy, accountability, corrigibility, non-domination, subsidiarity, and institutional resilience), synthesized from political legitimacy theory, principal-agent models, republican political theory, and AI alignment research. Applied first to existing institutions and then to a prospective case of bounded superintelligent authority where capability asymmetry is radical, the framework finds structural failures on four of six dimensions. Among these, two are design-tractable and two are theory-requiring: the public reason problem under cognitive incomprehensibility and the non-domination problem under permanent capability asymmetry demand genuinely new normative frameworks, not better institutional design. A further finding is that dimensions which function as independent checks under bounded asymmetry become correlated failures under radical asymmetry. The analysis contributes to political theory by exposing foundational assumptions that have gone unexamined because, until now, they have always been satisfied.

Related papers

• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Is Decentralized AI Governable? From Regulative Policy to Constitutive Protocol [1.5755923640031846]
  We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack.<n>We argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T12:09:56Z)
• When Agents Evolve, Institutions Follow [52.359340707289114]
  We argue that multi-agent systems built on large language models face the same challenge.<n>Their central problem is not only individual intelligence, but collective organization.<n>We translate seven historical political institutions, spanning four canonical governance patterns, into executable multi-agent architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T10:30:58Z)
• From Disclosure to Self-Referential Opacity: Six Dimensions of Strain in Current AI Governance [0.0]
  This paper applies a six-dimension framework from political theory to six AI governance arrangements already in operation.<n>The patterns are offered as hypotheses for multi-rater validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T16:39:28Z)
• Governed Reasoning for Institutional AI [0.0]
  Cognitive Core is a governed decision substrate built from nine typed cognitive primitives.<n>Human review is a condition of execution rather than a post-hoc check.<n>We benchmark three systems on an 11-case balanced prior authorization appeal evaluation set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T14:09:18Z)
• I Can't Believe It's Corrupt: Evaluating Corruption in Multi-Agent Governance Systems [8.670200461690454]
  We present evidence that integrity in institutional AI should be treated as a pre-deployment requirement rather than a post-deployment assumption.<n>We evaluate multi-agent governance simulations in which agents occupy formal governmental roles under different authority structures.<n>We score rule-breaking and abuse outcomes with an independent-based judge across 28,112 transcript segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T13:34:54Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Stability of AI Governance Systems: A Coupled Dynamics Model of Public Trust and Social Disruptions [0.49157446832511503]
  This paper proposes a rigorous coupled dynamics model that integrates a discrete-time Hawkes process.<n>A key innovation is the bidirectional feedback mechanism: declining trust amplifies the intensity of subsequent controversy events.<n> Numerical experiments reveal how echo chamber network structures and media amplification accelerate governance failure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T12:24:30Z)
• Agency and Architectural Limits: Why Optimization-Based Systems Cannot Be Norm-Responsive [0.0]
  AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts under the assumption they can be governed by norms.<n>This paper demonstrates that the assumption is formally invalid for optimization-based systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T17:16:17Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• 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)
• Societal and technological progress as sewing an ever-growing, ever-changing, patchy, and polychrome quilt [44.522343543870804]
  We are worried that such systems, which overlook enduring moral diversity, will spark resistance, erode trust, and destabilize our institutions.<n>This paper traces the underlying problem to an often-unstated Axiom of Rational Convergence: the idea that under ideal conditions, rational agents will converge in the limit of conversation on a single ethics.<n>Treating that premise as both optional and doubtful, we propose what we call the appropriateness framework: an alternative approach grounded in conflict theory, cultural evolution, multi-agent systems, and institutional economics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T12:55:07Z)
• Uncertainty, bias and the institution bootstrapping problem [0.0]
  We propose that misperception, specifically, agents' erroneous belief that an institution already exists, could resolve this paradox.<n>We show how these factors collectively mitigate the bootstrapping problem.<n>Our analysis underscores the importance of incorporating human-like cognitive constraints, not just idealized rationality, into models of institutional emergence and resilience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T12:36:06Z)
• Agency Is Frame-Dependent [94.91580596320331]
  Agency is a system's capacity to steer outcomes toward a goal.<n>We argue that agency is fundamentally frame-dependent.<n>We conclude that any basic science of agency requires frame-dependence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T08:34:57Z)

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.