Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the inadequacy of current public service AI governance frameworks in the context of general-purpose AI (GPAI), highlighting how the attributes that make GPAI appealing—such as generality and low deployment costs—compromise traditional safety measures like accuracy and accountability. The authors use policing as a case study to illustrate the severe consequences of governance failures, arguing that existing mitigation strategies, such as expert evaluation and human oversight, are fundamentally undermined by GPAI's characteristics. Their recommendations include establishing a clear distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documents and advocating for a pause on GPAI deployment in policing until sufficient safety evidence is gathered.
Governance frameworks for public service AI are at risk of collapse under the weight of general-purpose AI's unbounded capabilities, particularly in high-stakes areas like policing.
Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources. That pressure has intensified with general-purpose AI (GPAI): AI built on large language models that can be directed by prompt alone to perform an effectively unbounded range of tasks. We argue that the properties that make these models attractive - their generality, accessibility, and low deployment cost - undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued. The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI, and the mitigations that guidance documents prescribe presuppose exactly what GPAI removes. Accuracy cannot be quantified over unbounded outputs. Bias cannot be disaggregated when outputs are free-text judgements rather than categorical predictions. Explainability gives way to the appearance of explanation, and accountability erodes as outputs are optimized to persuade. We develop this through the case of policing, where the consequences of governance failure are most severe, and show why the same failure is likely to recur across other public services. The two mitigations that dominate policing AI strategy - expert evaluation and human-in-the-loop oversight - both rest on assumptions that GPAI violates. Safety assurance thus shifts from an intrinsic feature of building an AI tool to an optional add-on. We recommend a clear taxonomic distinction between narrow and general-purpose AI in governance documentation, a preference for technological parsimony, a pause on operational deployment of GPAI in policing until adequate evidence exists, and a coordinated national safety infrastructure with the authority to generate that evidence and determine when responsible deployment is achievable.