去中心化AI让责任主体消失,传统治理失效,需用协议重构规则。
Is Decentralized AI Governable? From Regulative Policy to Constitutive Protocol
- 提出六层去中心化架构,揭示治理真空成因。
- 发现责任缺失与系统不可控双重困境,超越法律管辖范畴。
- 主张从政策规制转向协议构建,以技术架构实现伦理约束。
现有AI治理框架均基于可追溯的责任主体(如开发者、部署者)。去中心化AI(DeAI)打破这一前提,通过模型、训练、算力、资源利用、身份与所有权六层的分层去中心化,导致系统虽具重大影响却无明确责任人,形成所谓‘治理真空’。该真空表现为两种形式:一是‘问责缺口’,无法识别可追责主体;二是‘无力干预缺口’,即使有主体也无法修改运行中的系统。这些缺陷不仅是法律管辖问题,更从根本上瓦解了治理所需的‘规范性传达’——即向可理解且可响应的主体传递规则的能力。基于Lessig的规制模态与Searle的规制/构成性规则区分,本文主张将治理重心从政策转向协议,从对行为者施加规范转为通过架构设计限制可能性。提出合法性、可争议性、透明性、非支配性四项伦理条件,确保协议治理不沦为不可问责的技术专断。核心政治挑战在于,在常规政策链条断裂后,重建对持续存在的架构决策的民主授权机制。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Every major framework for governing artificial intelligence presupposes an identifiable entity -- a developer, deployer, or operator -- who can be held responsible and compelled to comply. Decentralized AI (DeAI) dissolves this presupposition. We analyze DeAI as a six-layer decentralizing stack -- model, training, compute, harness, identity, and ownership -- and show how partial decentralization across layers compounds into what we call the \emph{governance vacuum}: a condition in which AI systems are consequential enough to require governance but lack the properties that existing frameworks presuppose in their targets. This vacuum takes two analytically distinct forms: an \emph{accountability gap}, where no addressable principal can be identified, and an \emph{incapacitation gap}, where even an identified principal cannot alter the running system. We demonstrate that these failures are not merely jurisdictional but defeat every presupposition of governance through normative address -- the communication of rules to a comprehending, responsive agent. Drawing on Lessig's modalities of regulation and Searle's distinction between regulative and constitutive rules, we argue for a shift in the locus of governance from policy to protocol, from normative address to architectural constraint. Protocol-based constitutive governance does not address the agents operating within a system but shapes the substrate that determines what kinds of actions are possible within it. We identify four ethical conditions -- legitimacy, contestability, transparency, and non-domination -- that such governance must satisfy to avoid degenerating into unaccountable technocratic power, and we argue that the central political challenge of governing AI in a decentralized world is reconstructing forms of democratic authorization for architectural choices that persist after the ordinary chain of policy has broken down.
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。