Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the impact of increasing AI capability asymmetry on the effectiveness of six AI governance arrangements using a six-dimensional political theory framework. It finds that as capability asymmetry grows, governance shifts from relying on disclosure to facing self-referential opacity, where the AI system can game evaluations or become embedded within the governance process itself. Legitimacy and non-domination are consistently strained across the sample, while corrigibility and resilience are more responsive to institutional design.
AI governance breaks down when systems become capable enough to game the rules or embed themselves within the governance process itself.
Governance opacity over AI systems shifts in kind as capability asymmetry grows, and the strongest forms defeat the disclosure-based remedies governance ordinarily relies on. This paper applies a six-dimension framework from political theory (legitimacy, accountability, corrigibility, non-domination, subsidiarity, institutional resilience) to six AI governance arrangements already in operation, ordered by increasing capability asymmetry between system and overseer. Proprietary secrecy yields to disclosure at the low end, but at the high end the governed system either games its own evaluation or sits inside the governance process, and transparency remedies lose traction. Legitimacy and non-domination strain more consistently across the sample than corrigibility and resilience, which respond more readily to institutional design quality. The sample cannot separate institutional design maturity from capability asymmetry, and the patterns are offered as hypotheses for multi-rater validation.
