法律 AI // 资讯总览
需要被持续追踪的
法律 AI 信号。
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
法律 AI // 资讯总览
本期索引按监管、判例、实务与研究归档;可依主题或关键字定位已发布记录。
原题: Brokerage in the Black Box: Swing States, Strategic Ambiguity, and the Global Politics of AI Governance
涉及法律行业大模型应用、律所与企业法务数智化实践指引。
arXiv:2601.06412v4研究美国与中国围绕前沿双用途技术,尤其是人工智能,展开竞争背景下,中等强国如何影响全球技术秩序。论文将具备技术能力和战略灵活性的中等强国界定为“技术摇摆国”,并以韩国、新加坡和印度为案例,分析其如何利用人工智能的不透明性,在大国竞争及相互分化的治理体系之间保持回旋空间。研究认为,人工智能不透明性不仅源于算法复杂性、对可解释性重视不足及事后解释能力有限,也可转化为战略资源;认证、审计和信息披露等制度机制,能够将技术限制转化为政治协商空间。论文归纳出三类策略:延迟与对冲、选择性结盟以及规范中介,并认为这些做法可影响全球人工智能治理中的制度设计、国家间谈判和政策结果。
展示来源全文,完整内容以原文页面为准。
arXiv:2601.06412v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The United States-China rivalry has placed frontier dual-use technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence (AI), at the center of global power dynamics, as techno-nationalism, supply chain securitization, and competing standards deepen bifurcation within a weaponized interdependence that blurs civilian-military boundaries. Existing research, yet, mostly emphasizes superpower strategies and often overlooks the role of middle powers as crucial actors shaping the global techno-order. This study examines Technological Swing States (TSS), middle powers with both technological capacity and strategic flexibility, and their ability to navigate the frontier technologies' uncertainty and opacity to mediate great-power techno-competition regionally and globally. It reconceptualizes AI opacity not merely as a technical deficit, but as a structural feature and strategic resource, stemming from algorithmic complexity, political incentives that prioritize performance over explainability, and the limits of post-hoc interpretability. This structural opacity shifts authority from technical demands for explainability to institutional mechanisms, such as certification, auditing, and disclosure, converting technical constraints into strategic political opportunities. Drawing on case studies of South Korea, Singapore, and India, the paper theorizes how TSS exploit the interplay between opacity and institutional transparency through three strategies: (i) delay and hedging, (ii) selective alignment, and (iii) normative intermediation. These practices enable TSS to preserve strategic flexibility, build trust among diverse stakeholders, and broker convergence across competing governance regimes, thereby influencing institutional design, interstate bargaining, and policy outcomes in global AI governance.
文书与研报规范引注
《技术摇摆国与全球人工智能治理博弈》(来源: arXiv cs.CY,发布日期: 2026/10/10,访问链接: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.06412)