From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17286v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 20:50:56 GMT
• Title: From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design
• Abstract summary: We map the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China.<n>We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment.<n>We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps.
• Score: 8.539323348149509
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI-enabled authoritarianism is not confined to autocracies. In this paper, we provide greater transparency by investigating and mapping the lifecycles of six AI systems deployed in different political regimes, ranging from the US to China. By drawing on an extensive range of sources (academic publications, investigative research reports, third-party evaluations, media interviews, government procurement notices), we conduct a systematic, qualitative comparison across systems to identify the critical technical and operational features that enable authoritarianism within their respective political contexts. We find that enabling features include the centralization and co-optation of administrative data for law enforcement and political punishment, regulatory gaps that fail to deter misuse, weak user compliance that nullifies human oversight mechanisms, and the encoding of protected group traits that identify members of vulnerable populations. We find that these features are present across systems deployed in autocratic and democratic regimes, albeit in varying configurations. We also find that both centralized and fragmented AI systems can contribute to authoritarianism by exploiting governance gaps: centralized systems directed by executive authorities, particularly within security and military institutions, are often not subjected to formal oversight mechanisms, while fragmented systems diffuse accountability between stakeholders, paving the way for entrenchment. These findings reveal that AI-enabled authoritarianism is distributed, resulting from design and operational choices made by developers, administrators, and users alike. We conclude with recommendations for developers and policymakers to mitigate these risks.

Related papers

• Neuro-Symbolic Participation Governance for Verifiable AI Agents in Open Digital Twin Ecosystems [12.774828297549467]
  Existing multi-agent systems often lack robust verification for identity, capability, and policy compliance.<n>This paper proposes a neuro-symbolic decentralized governance framework for verifiable agents in collaborative digital twin environments.<n>Our findings suggest that neuro-symbolic decentralized governance provides a scalable and trustworthy pathway for safe human-machine collaboration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T02:30:32Z)
• How to Detect and Measure the AI Dangers to Democracy [0.0]
  We propose an analytical framework that centers on institutional assessability as the central condition for democratic control over AI.<n>Treating AI as a delegation problem helps identify accountability gaps and other governance failures.<n>We stress that how severe a harm is, and how much risk is acceptable, are evaluative judgments that current methodologies neither acknowledge nor operationalize.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T22:59:50Z)
• Agentic AI for Cybersecurity: A Meta-Cognitive Architecture for Governable Autonomy [0.0]
  This paper argues that cybersecurity orchestration should be reconceptualized as an agentic, multi-agent cognitive system.<n>We introduce a conceptual framework in which heterogeneous AI agents responsible for detection, hypothesis formation, contextual interpretation, explanation, and governance are coordinated through an explicit meta-cognitive judgement function.<n>Our contribution is to make this cognitive structure architecturally explicit and governable by embedding meta-cognitive judgement as a first-class system function.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T12:52:49Z)
• Democracy-in-Silico: Institutional Design as Alignment in AI-Governed Polities [2.1485350418225244]
  Democracy-in-Silico is an agent-based simulation where societies of advanced AI agents govern themselves under different institutional frameworks.<n>We explore what it means to be human in an age of AI by tasking Large Language Models (LLMs) to embody agents with traumatic memories, hidden agendas, and psychological triggers.<n>We present a novel metric, the Power-Preservation Index (PPI), to quantify misaligned behavior where agents prioritize their own power over public welfare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-27T04:44:41Z)
• A Moral Agency Framework for Legitimate Integration of AI in Bureaucracies [0.0]
  Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI)<n>We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T17:49:19Z)
• When Autonomy Goes Rogue: Preparing for Risks of Multi-Agent Collusion in Social Systems [78.04679174291329]
  We introduce a proof-of-concept to simulate the risks of malicious multi-agent systems (MAS)<n>We apply this framework to two high-risk fields: misinformation spread and e-commerce fraud.<n>Our findings show that decentralized systems are more effective at carrying out malicious actions than centralized ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T15:17:30Z)
• Media and responsible AI governance: a game-theoretic and LLM analysis [61.132523071109354]
  This paper investigates the interplay between AI developers, regulators, users, and the media in fostering trustworthy AI systems.<n>Using evolutionary game theory and large language models (LLMs), we model the strategic interactions among these actors under different regulatory regimes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T21:39:38Z)
• AGI, Governments, and Free Societies [0.0]
  We argue that AGI poses distinct risks of pushing societies toward either a 'despotic Leviathan' or an 'absent Leviathan'<n>We analyze how these dynamics could unfold through three key channels.<n> Enhanced state capacity through AGI could enable unprecedented surveillance and control, potentially entrenching authoritarian practices.<n>Conversely, rapid diffusion of AGI capabilities to non-state actors could undermine state legitimacy and governability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-14T03:55:38Z)
• 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)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

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.