Regulating for AI Legitimacy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24391v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2026 13:06:38 GMT
• Title: Regulating for AI Legitimacy
• Abstract summary: AI systems already govern. They rank speech and allocate attention, filter applicants and triage claims.<n>The dominant frame for AI governance, alignment, asks whether such systems pursue the right objectives safely.<n>This Article argues that legitimacy is an autonomous regulatory objective, distinct from alignment and not secured by it.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI systems already govern. They rank speech and allocate attention, filter applicants and triage claims. The dominant frame for AI governance, alignment, asks whether such systems pursue the right objectives safely. It cannot answer a prior question: by what right are those objectives set and enforced? This Article argues that legitimacy is an autonomous regulatory objective, distinct from alignment and not secured by it. Legitimacy here is sociological: the belief among those subject to power that it is exercised rightfully. Performance does not produce that belief. We already have the proof of concept. Social media and search delivered enormous gains on every familiar metric and still triggered a legitimacy crisis, because publics questioned who authorized a handful of firms to set the rules of speech, visibility, and knowledge. It is possible to build a benevolent AI and still face a political crisis over its authority. The Article maps three sites where AI legitimacy falters: opacity, which blocks audiences from forming justified beliefs; private power, where firms exercise public-facing authority without recognizable authorization; and administrative automation, which strains reason-giving, participation, and review inside the state. It then asks what law can contribute. Thin legality (publicity, stability, consistent application) signals non-arbitrariness and buys real recognition, but invites legitimacy-washing when form drifts from practice. Thick legality supplies what form cannot: public authorship of the rules that bind. Three portable principles follow. Integration seats consequential AI rule-setting in venues a polity already treats as authoritative. Familiarity presents rules and reasons in locally credible forms. Contestation guarantees a credible second look with real remedies.

Related papers

• Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice [0.46976113832881716]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by laypeople to resolve real legal problems.<n>This article presents evidence that the practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends not on its accuracy but on the social production of its credibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-13T15:33:12Z)
• Beyond Detection: Redesigning Assessment and Governande of Generative AI at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) [39.92037610044293]
  Most institutions frame the debate around AI detection, plagiarism, academic integrity and a presumed drop in student effort as defensive.<n>Other group of pioneering universities is pursuing deeper adoption, and assuming that any policy built on prevention or sanction will not hold.<n>What universities need instead is a coordinated effort to set clear, course-by-course rules for GenAI use.<n>UPM is developing a strategic and sustainable AI policy and adoption framework structured around six dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T18:04:50Z)
• Bridging Legal Interpretation and Formal Logic: Faithfulness, Assumption, and the Future of AI Legal Reasoning [3.093890460224435]
  The growing adoption of large language models in legal practice brings both significant promise and serious risk.<n>This proposal presents a neuro-symbolic approach to legal AI that combines the expressive power of large language models with the rigor of formal verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T19:11:09Z)
• The Law-Following AI Framework: Legal Foundations and Technical Constraints. Legal Analogues for AI Actorship and technical feasibility of Law Alignment [0.0]
  "Law-Following AI" aims to embed legal compliance as a superordinate design objective for advanced AI agents.<n>Recent studies on agentic misalignment show capable AI agents engaging in deception, blackmail, and harmful acts absent prejudicial instructions.<n>We propose a "Lex-TruthfulQA" benchmark for compliance and defection detection, (ii) identity-shaping interventions to embed lawful conduct in model self-concepts, and (iii) control-theoretic measures for post-deployment monitoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T16:00:55Z)
• Reclaiming Constitutional Authority of Algorithmic Power [0.0]
  Whether and how to govern AI is no longer a question of technical regulation.<n>This Article reconstructs a constitutional framework grounded in covenantal authority and the right of lawful resistance.<n>Individuals retain a constitutional right to resist systems that impose orthodoxy or erode the domain of conscience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T23:46:30Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Responsible Artificial Intelligence Systems: A Roadmap to Society's Trust through Trustworthy AI, Auditability, Accountability, and Governance [37.10526074040908]
  This paper explores the concept of a responsible AI system from a holistic perspective.<n>The final goal of the paper is to propose a roadmap in the design of responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T14:47:30Z)
• 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)
• Legitimate Power, Illegitimate Automation: The problem of ignoring legitimacy in automated decision systems [0.0]
  Machine learning and artificial intelligence have spurred the widespread adoption of automated decision systems (ADS) This paper shows that theorists often incorrectly conflate legitimacy with either public acceptance or other substantive values such as fairness, accuracy, expertise or efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T06:29:54Z)
• Trust AI Regulation? Discerning users are vital to build trust and effective AI regulation [32.98110040460262]
  We show that creating trustworthy AI and user trust requires regulators to be incentivised to regulate effectively. We demonstrate the effectiveness of two mechanisms that can achieve this. We then consider an alternative solution, where users can condition their trust decision on the effectiveness of the regulators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T15:56:39Z)
• AI Ethics and Ordoliberalism 2.0: Towards A 'Digital Bill of Rights' [0.0]
  This article analyzes AI ethics from a distinct business ethics perspective, i.e., 'ordoliberalism 2.0' It argues that the ongoing discourse on (generative) AI relies too much on corporate self-regulation and voluntary codes of conduct. The paper suggests merging already existing AI guidelines with an ordoliberal-inspired regulatory and competition policy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T10:26:12Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)

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.