政府治理前沿AI需动态风险管理,而非僵化合规。
Governing frontier general-purpose AI in the public sector: adaptive risk management and policy capacity under uncertainty through 2030
- 构建适应性治理框架,融合风险分级与条件控制。
- 2030年前需应对能力发展不均与危害认知滞后双重挑战。
- 适合政策制定者与公共部门管理者参考。
前沿通用人工智能的治理已成为公共部门制度设计问题,而非仅关乎模型性能的技术议题。最新证据表明,尽管人工智能能力快速但不均衡地发展,但对其潜在危害、防护措施及有效干预手段的认知仍不充分且滞后。这种状况导致政策制定面临严峻挑战:政府必须在不确定性中决策,面对多种可能的技术演进路径(至2030年),同时组织流程、数据配置、问责机制和公众价值也深刻影响应用成效。本文主张,公共部门的前沿AI治理应基于自适应风险管理、情景意识型监管与社会技术转型,而非静态合规模式。结合《2026年国际人工智能安全报告》、OECD前瞻与政策文件以及数字政府研究,本文重构了‘证据困境’的概念基础、差异化风险类别及其预测局限。进而分析政府采纳AI依赖于组织重构、制度动态与数据协作能力。在此基础上提出一套适应性治理框架,包含能力监测、风险分层、条件控制、制度学习与标准互操作性。结论指出,有效治理需强化政策能力、明确责任分配,并建立跨技术未来仍稳健的治理机制。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
The governance of frontier general-purpose artificial intelligence has become a public-sector problem of institutional design, not merely a technical issue of model performance. Recent evidence indicates that AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, though unevenly, while knowledge about harms, safeguards, and effective interventions remains partial and lagged. This combination creates a difficult policy condition: governments must decide under uncertainty, across multiple plausible trajectories of progress through 2030, and in environments where adoption outcomes depend on organizational routines, data arrangements, accountability structures, and public values. This article argues that public governance for frontier AI should be based on adaptive risk management, scenario-aware regulation, and sociotechnical transformation rather than static compliance models. Drawing on the International AI Safety Report 2026, OECD foresight and policy documents, and recent scholarship in digital government, the article first reconstructs the conceptual foundations of the 'evidence dilemma', differentiated AI risk categories, and the limits of prediction. It then examines how AI adoption in government depends on organizational redesign, public-sector institutional dynamics, and data collaboration capacity. On that basis, it proposes an adaptive governance framework for public institutions that integrates capability monitoring, risk tiering, conditional controls, institutional learning, and standards-based interoperability. The article concludes that effective AI governance requires stronger policy capacity, clearer allocation of responsibility, and governance mechanisms that remain robust across divergent technological futures.
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。