Scaling, Lock-In, and Proxy Compliance: A Political Economy of Responsible AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28023v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 11:12:13 GMT
• Title: Scaling, Lock-In, and Proxy Compliance: A Political Economy of Responsible AI
• Abstract summary: We develop a sequential political-economy model to address accountability for AI systems.<n>We show that an AI vendor chooses auditability and substantive mitigation, a deployer monitors after adoption while switching costs, and enforcement depends on verifiable evidence.<n>The results explain why documentation and standardized evaluations can coexist with persistent post-deployment harms.
• Score: 1.253312107729806
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI accountability at scale is an institutional problem: who can observe, verify, and change deployed systems. We develop a sequential political-economy model in which an AI vendor chooses auditability and substantive mitigation, a deployer monitors after adoption while facing switching costs, and enforcement depends on verifiable evidence. Anticipating the deployer's monitoring response, the vendor may stop at an observable procurement floor while mitigating below the social first best, producing a proxy-compliance equilibrium. We characterize the unique interior equilibrium and the corner in which harm is fully mitigated. Independent audit rights raise enforcement exposure directly; portability restores deployer leverage; incident reporting adds a regulator-visible evidence channel; and outcome-linked liability creates incentives that do not depend on vendor-controlled detection. The results explain why documentation and standardized evaluations can coexist with persistent post-deployment harms, and generate testable implications for monitoring, mitigation, and the gap between formal compliance and operational outcomes.

Related papers

• Reality Is the Final Verifier: On Two Key Gaps in Agentic Software Engineering [78.51705689800838]
  We propose an assurance-revision loop that uses deployment evidence to revise the requirements, model, or evaluator.<n>We then cast assured agentic development as a resource-allocation problem over human judgment, agent capability, and compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T17:58:48Z)
• The Invisible Editorial Layer: Formalizing Undisclosed Inference-Time Steering, Probability Placement, and the Attribution Problem in Deployed Language Models [0.0]
  Evaluations of generative language models frequently interpret observable behavioral traits, such as political stance, brand inclination, and normative framing, as manifestations of model weights, post-training alignment, or prompting.<n>We examine inference-time framing bias: systematic steering of generated text toward institutional, ideological, or commercial frames without requiring changes to the underlying model parameters.<n>We argue that governance of generative systems must increasingly distinguish between auditing a model and auditing the deployed system that ultimately speaks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T15:05:19Z)
• Stop Shipping AI Agents on Faith: Capability Is Not Production Readiness [0.0]
  This paper introduces the ProofAgent Index (PAI), a governance readiness index for AI agents.<n>PAI combines four dimensions of deployment evidence: Evaluation, Context, Compliance, and Governance.<n>It is implemented inside ProofAgent Harness, an open source infrastructure for auditable AI agent evaluation and governance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T04:44:47Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Embodied Intelligence: A Systems Framework and Graded Trustworthiness Levels [53.63220028820581]
  Embodied intelligence integrates learned perception and decision making with real-time computation, control, and physical interaction.<n>We define trustworthy embodied intelligence as the sustained capacity to execute specified tasks reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T17:50:44Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• When Outcome Looks Right But Discipline Fails: Trace-Based Evaluation Under Hidden Competitor State [0.39287497907611874]
  Outcome-only evaluation can certify economically unsafe agents.<n>In hotel pricing with hidden competitor state, a learner can achieve plausible revenue per available room while failing to preserve the rate discipline of a rule-based revenue-management policy.<n>We introduce discipline stability, a trace-based evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T15:58:34Z)
• AI Alignment via Incentives and Correction [14.986111703734222]
  We study AI alignment through the lens of law-and-economics models of deterrence and enforcement.<n>A solver may benefit from producing a persuasive but incorrect answer, hiding uncertainty, or exploiting spurious shortcuts.<n>We formalize this interaction in a two-agent model in which a principal chooses rewards over joint correction outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T23:28:02Z)
• How Supply Chain Dependencies Complicate Bias Measurement and Accountability Attribution in AI Hiring Applications [1.0742675209112622]
  Modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations.<n>This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution.<n>We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T16:01:35Z)
• IMPACT-CYCLE: A Contract-Based Multi-Agent System for Claim-Level Supervisory Correction of Long-Video Semantic Memory [73.22944697933603]
  Existing pipelines produce opaque, end-to-end outputs that expose no intermediate state for inspection.<n>We present IMPACT-Cycle, a supervisory multi-agent system that reformulates long-video understanding as a multimodal iterative claim-level maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T03:03:33Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)

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.