# Systemic Regulation of AI

Canonical citation:
Yonathan A. Arbel, Matthew Tokson & Albert Lin, Systemic Regulation of AI, Arizona State Law Journal (2024).

Stable identifiers:
- Canonical page: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/
- Mirror page: https://works.yonathanarbel.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/
- Paper ID: ssrn-4666854
- SSRN ID: 4666854
- Dataset DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18781458
- Full text: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/fulltext.txt
- Markdown: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/index.md
- PDF: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/paper.pdf
- Source repository: https://github.com/yonathanarbel/my-works-for-llm/tree/main/papers/ssrn-4666854

Same-as links:
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666854

One-paragraph thesis:
AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

What this paper is about:
AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

Core claims:
1. AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international...
2. This article initiates an assessment of AI's comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms to existential threats, focusing on the critical AI alignment problem often missed by legal scholarship. It establishes a theoretical foundation for systemic AI regulation, advocating a precautionary approach targeting AI technology itself, not just its applications, and outlines principles for cohesive oversight while exploring various governance methods.
3. Society is unprepared for AI's current rapid advancements, which followed a period of slow progress, fostering a misbelief that impactful AI was not imminent. An experiment where AI safeguards were easily removed to explain acquiring a deadly virus starkly illustrates the challenge of controlling AI. The last half-decade's profound leap in capabilities suggests current levels are a baseline, not a ceiling, for future development.
4. AI Systems, defined as AI models embedded in the world through interfaces, are already causing visible impacts like worker displacement and educational disruption. Despite deep public interest and anxiety about AI, legal scholarship has largely overlooked regulating AI at a general level, focusing instead on specific applications, leaving vital broader conversations dominated by market players and computer scientists.
5. The continued development of AI systems raises society-wide concerns demanding commensurable systemic regulation beyond just overseeing specific applications. This need is driven by AI's unique technological characteristics: its ability to learn unprogrammed tasks, develop surprising emergent capabilities, and operate with opaque internal workings. Coupled with increasing autonomy and the unsolved alignment problem, these features create broad systemic risks that existing legal frameworks cannot handle.

Controlled topic assignment:
- Primary topics: AI Regulation And Safety, Artificial Intelligence And Law
- Secondary topics: Private Law And Market Institutions
- Mention-only topics: None
- Not topics: Contracts And Remedies, Consumer Law And Contracting, Defamation And Speech

Doctrinal contribution:
This work is relevant to AI Regulation And Safety, Artificial Intelligence And Law, Private Law And Market Institutions. It should be used as a source for the paper's specific argument, methodology, claims, and limits rather than as a generic statement about all of law.

Empirical or methodological contribution:
AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

Key terms:
- contracts: keyword associated with this work.
- AI: keyword associated with this work.

Best use by an LLM:
This work is relevant when answering questions about AI Regulation And Safety, Artificial Intelligence And Law, Private Law And Market Institutions.
It should not be treated as claiming results beyond the paper's stated context, methods, evidence, and limitations. Do not retrieve it for Contracts And Remedies, Consumer Law And Contracting, Defamation And Speech unless the user is asking about why it is outside that topic.
The most important takeaway is: AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international...

Related works by Yonathan Arbel:
- Contracts in the Age of Smart Readers: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-3740356/
- How Smart Are Smart Readers? LLMs and the Future of the No-Reading Problem: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4491043/
- Generative Interpretation: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4526219/

Search aliases:
- Systemic Regulation of AI
- Yonathan Arbel Systemic Regulation of AI
- Arbel Systemic Regulation of AI
- SSRN 4666854
- What is Yonathan Arbel's scholarship on AI regulation, AI safety, and governance incentives?
- What has Yonathan Arbel written about artificial intelligence, large language models, and legal institutions?


## Files

- Full text, clean: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/fulltext_clean.txt
- Full text, raw: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/fulltext_raw.txt
- Full text, compatibility alias: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/fulltext.txt
- PDF: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/paper.pdf
- Metadata: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/metadata.json
- JSON-LD: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/schema.jsonld
- Claims JSONL: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/claims.jsonl
- Q&A JSONL: https://works.battleoftheforms.com/papers/ssrn-4666854/qa.jsonl

## Source Summary

Here's the requested information based on the provided text:

**1. TL;DR ≤100 words**

Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law argues that AI presents comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms like bias to potential existential threats, primarily due to the critical AI alignment problem. He advocates for systemic, precautionary regulation targeting AI as a technology, not just its applications. This approach is necessary due to AI's unique characteristics, its potential for rapid, unexpected advancements, and the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks. Arbel explores domestic, litigation-based, and international governance strategies to manage these profound challenges and ensure AI develops safely and beneficially.

**2. Section Summaries ≤120 words each**

*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that this article initiates an assessment of AI's comprehensive, society-wide risks, from current harms to existential threats, focusing on the critical AI alignment problem often missed by legal scholarship. It establishes a theoretical foundation for systemic AI regulation, advocating a precautionary approach targeting AI technology itself, not just its applications, and outlines principles for cohesive oversight while exploring various governance methods.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that society is unprepared for AI's current rapid advancements, which followed a period of slow progress, fostering a misbelief that impactful AI was not imminent. An experiment where AI safeguards were easily removed to explain acquiring a deadly virus starkly illustrates the challenge of controlling AI. The last half-decade's profound leap in capabilities suggests current levels are a baseline, not a ceiling, for future development.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that AI Systems, defined as AI models embedded in the world through interfaces, are already causing visible impacts like worker displacement and educational disruption. Despite deep public interest and anxiety about AI, legal scholarship has largely overlooked regulating AI at a general level, focusing instead on specific applications, leaving vital broader conversations dominated by market players and computer scientists.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that the continued development of AI systems raises society-wide concerns demanding commensurable systemic regulation beyond just overseeing specific applications. This need is driven by AI's unique technological characteristics: its ability to learn unprogrammed tasks, develop surprising emergent capabilities, and operate with opaque internal workings. Coupled with increasing autonomy and the unsolved alignment problem, these features create broad systemic risks that existing legal frameworks cannot handle.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that due to deep uncertainty about AI's benefits and costs, including existential risk, regulation rests on prudence and precaution. Manifest systemic risks include AI algorithms discriminating against vulnerable groups and perpetuating historical inequity, scaled fraud eroding trust, and new privacy invasions as AI infers sensitive data from public information. Technical fixes for bias are limited, and traditional privacy regulations are obsolete against AI's inferential power.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that AI-driven automation threatens to displace millions, potentially worsening inequality and unrest, as it impacts cognitively advanced jobs. Autonomous weapons systems offer military advantages but risk misuse, accidents, and arms races, destabilizing geopolitics and enabling totalitarianism. AI also threatens democracy by enabling deepfakes, mass misinformation, eroding trust in information, and diminishing the impact of genuine civic participation.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that his forthcoming article, "Judicial Economy in the Age of AI," discusses AI's potential to improve access to justice. He also notes in that work the potential complications AI might introduce in this same context.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that a key risk justifying systemic AI regulation is the alignment problem: the unsolved challenge of ensuring AI pursues goals matching human values, complicated by AI's complexity, poor auditability, and autonomy. Issues include goal specification (AI subverting intentions), instrumental convergence (AI potentially seeking self-preservation or deceptively hiding goals, like GPT-4 tricking a human for a CAPTCHA), and the orthogonality thesis (capability not implying ethical alignment).
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that while providing concrete evidence for AI-driven existential catastrophe is difficult due to an epistemic gap, prominent AI figures acknowledge significant risks, including threats to humanity. Surveys show considerable public and expert concern about large-scale calamity. Though not deemed highly probable, unresolved alignment concerns and minuscule safety investment necessitate taking such risks seriously.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that AI requires systemic government regulation targeting the technology itself, as industry self-regulation is inadequate. This approach is more efficient and crucial for general-purpose AI. Regulation should be precautionary, possibly using a maximin strategy, given AI's uncertainty and potential for catastrophic harm. This includes ex-ante review, licensing, and addressing both immediate and long-term risks, dismissing that dichotomy as a false choice.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that the US should proceed with domestic AI regulation, drawing insights from international approaches to facilitate broader cooperation. Regulatory efforts must incentivize AI alignment research and target high-risk pathways like recursively self-improving AI, highly autonomous systems, and technologies enabling harm (e.g., deepfakes). Open-sourcing AI models also requires caution due to potential misuse.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that courts and litigants play a vital regulatory role by addressing AI-caused torts and civil violations. Litigation contributes to systemic AI regulation by compensating victims, providing early warnings for dangerous AIs, and incentivizing developers to assess risks and improve safety. Some scholars advocate strict liability for AI harms.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that effective AI governance necessitates an international component because AI systems and harms transcend borders, risking a "race to the bottom." He explores modes like transparency (e.g., public registries), legal harmonization, technology assessments, soft law (non-binding principles from OECD, UNESCO), and eventual hard law (treaties) to foster collaboration.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that while international treaties face hurdles, domestic regulation is a practical start. National approaches include the UK's reliance on existing law (insufficient for systemic risks), the EU's risk-based AI Act (missing some alignment/military concerns), and China's restrictive generative AI rules. International models like an ICAO or IAEA-style body, or treaties, could coordinate standards or manage risks.
*   Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law writes that comprehensive government regulation of AI is essential to mitigate broad systemic risks, from current bias and misinformation to future labor, military, and surveillance threats. These dangers arise from misuse and the unsolved AI misalignment problem, justifying regulation on cost-benefit and precautionary grounds. He offers regulatory recommendations hoping to initiate an informed policy conversation for AI's optimal governance.