Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper develops a sequential political-economy model to analyze the dynamics of AI accountability, focusing on the interplay between AI vendors and deployers in the context of auditability and mitigation strategies. It reveals that vendors may opt for minimal observable compliance, leading to a "proxy-compliance equilibrium" where actual harm is not fully mitigated despite formal adherence to standards. The study highlights how independent audit rights and other mechanisms can enhance enforcement and accountability, providing insights into the persistent gap between compliance and operational outcomes in AI deployment.
Vendors may settle for minimal compliance, leaving significant operational harms unaddressed, unless deployers are empowered with independent audit rights and better monitoring tools.
AI accountability at scale is an institutional problem: who can observe, verify, and change deployed systems. We develop a sequential political-economy model in which an AI vendor chooses auditability and substantive mitigation, a deployer monitors after adoption while facing switching costs, and enforcement depends on verifiable evidence. Anticipating the deployer's monitoring response, the vendor may stop at an observable procurement floor while mitigating below the social first best, producing a proxy-compliance equilibrium. We characterize the unique interior equilibrium and the corner in which harm is fully mitigated. Independent audit rights raise enforcement exposure directly; portability restores deployer leverage; incident reporting adds a regulator-visible evidence channel; and outcome-linked liability creates incentives that do not depend on vendor-controlled detection. The results explain why documentation and standardized evaluations can coexist with persistent post-deployment harms, and generate testable implications for monitoring, mitigation, and the gap between formal compliance and operational outcomes.