Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the significant gap in AI governance and auditing in the Global South compared to its rapid deployment, highlighting a decade of AI audit practices across Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia Pacific. It identifies critical patterns in AI evaluations, revealing issues such as proxy targets, misleading performance claims, and persistent structural biases, while documenting fewer than twenty published audits despite extensive algorithm deployment and investment. The authors argue that the core issue is not a lack of capacity but rather insufficient funding for independent evaluations, emphasizing the role of development and philanthropic funders in addressing this gap.
Despite rapid AI deployment in the Global South, fewer than twenty independent audits exist, exposing a critical funding gap in AI governance.
Artificial intelligence is being deployed across the Global South at a pace matching or exceeding the Global North, yet AI governance has not kept pace, and the gap is far wider in the South. Drawing on a decade of AI audit practice across Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia Pacific (the only fully published second-party audit of a deployed system in the region, Robot Laura in Brazil; two completed but unreleased national audits, of a child-welfare risk model and a public-employment matching algorithm; thirteen Responsible AI Assessments; and a regional landscape analysis), this paper documents patterns in the sparse field of Global South AI evaluation and explains why it so rarely occurs. We count fewer than twenty published second- and third-party audits of deployed systems across the region over the past decade, against hundreds of documented public-sector algorithms and multibillion-dollar national AI investments. We find four cross-cutting patterns: proxy targets that substitute predictability for validity, performance claims that collapse under prevalence analysis, populations scored by models that never saw them in training, and structural bias that persists even after protected attributes are removed. We then draw five lessons for evaluation, regulation, and funding that emerge outside the regulatory, linguistic, and data conditions of the North. We argue the gap is not, at root, a capacity problem but a funding problem: capacity follows funded demand, and no actor is currently required, or funded, to hold deployed systems to account. The actor best placed to close it is the small number of development and philanthropic funders behind most consequential AI in the region, whose funding conditions can require independent evaluation where no regulator yet does. We close with recommendations for funders, governments, and the design of evaluation itself.