比较欧、美、英、中四地AI监管框架,揭示各模式优劣。
Between Innovation and Oversight: A Cross-Regional Study of AI Risk Management Frameworks in the EU, U.S., UK, and China
- 通过政策对比与案例分析,梳理四地风险分类与治理机制。
- 欧盟重透明合规,美国促创新但执行分散,中国推得快却缺公开性。
- 适合关注AI政策、跨国监管协同的研究者与决策者阅读。
随着人工智能技术日益渗透医疗、交通、金融等关键领域,建立有效的治理框架以应对伦理、安全与社会风险至关重要。本文对欧盟(EU)、美国(U.S.)、英国(UK)和中国的人工智能风险管理体系进行跨区域比较研究。采用多方法定性分析,包括政策比较、主题分析与案例研究,探讨这些地区如何界定AI风险、实施合规措施、构建监督机制、重视透明度并响应新兴创新。通过医疗诊断、自动驾驶、金融科技与人脸识别等高风险场景的实例,展示不同监管模式的优劣。研究发现:欧盟采用结构化、基于风险的框架,强调透明与合规评估;美国实行去中心化、行业特定的监管,促进创新但导致执行碎片化;英国灵活的行业策略利于快速响应,但覆盖不均;中国集中式指令可实现大规模快速部署,但削弱公众透明度与外部监督。研究指出,全球化的有效监管需兼顾情境敏感性,平衡风险管控与技术进步。论文最后提出政策建议与未来研究方向,旨在推动更具适应性与包容性的全球AI治理。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies increasingly enter important sectors like healthcare, transportation, and finance, the development of effective governance frameworks is crucial for dealing with ethical, security, and societal risks. This paper conducts a comparative analysis of AI risk management strategies across the European Union (EU), United States (U.S.), United Kingdom (UK), and China. A multi-method qualitative approach, including comparative policy analysis, thematic analysis, and case studies, investigates how these regions classify AI risks, implement compliance measures, structure oversight, prioritize transparency, and respond to emerging innovations. Examples from high-risk contexts like healthcare diagnostics, autonomous vehicles, fintech, and facial recognition demonstrate the advantages and limitations of different regulatory models. The findings show that the EU implements a structured, risk-based framework that prioritizes transparency and conformity assessments, while the U.S. uses decentralized, sector-specific regulations that promote innovation but may lead to fragmented enforcement. The flexible, sector-specific strategy of the UK facilitates agile responses but may lead to inconsistent coverage across domains. China's centralized directives allow rapid large-scale implementation while constraining public transparency and external oversight. These insights show the necessity for AI regulation that is globally informed yet context-sensitive, aiming to balance effective risk management with technological progress. The paper concludes with policy recommendations and suggestions for future research aimed at enhancing effective, adaptive, and inclusive AI governance globally.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。