# 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?