Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents

Bayo Okusanya; Charles von Goins II; Dontrail Cotlage; Justin Goldston; Tomer Jordi Chaffer

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes ETHOS, a blockchain-based global registry and governance layer that would give autonomous AI agents verifiable identities, tiered oversight, and automated compliance enforcement.

desk verdict A competent conceptual synthesis of Web3 tools for AI agent governance, but the registry's closed-world assumption is unaddressed and the enforcement claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17114 v3 pith:I7FREVQT submitted 2024-12-22 cs.AI cs.ET

Tomer Jordi Chaffer , Charles von Goins II , Bayo Okusanya , Dontrail Cotlage , Justin Goldston This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.ET

keywords AIagentsdecentralizedgovernanceblockchainsmartcontractsDAOssoulboundtokenszero-knowledgeproofsriskclassification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that existing centralized regulations such as the EU AI Act and the NIST framework cannot handle autonomous AI agents that learn and act independently, and it proposes a decentralized governance layer built on blockchain to close the gap. It introduces ETHOS, a global registry where every AI agent gets a self-sovereign identity, a risk tier, and compliance credentials in the form of soulbound tokens. Oversight is meant to be proportional: unacceptable-risk agents are banned, high-risk agents are audited and continuously monitored, moderate-risk agents face disclosure and bias checks, and minimal-risk agents self-certify. The authors claim that smart contracts, oracles, and zero-knowledge proofs make compliance monitoring automatic and tamper-resistant, while DAOs provide participatory decision-making. If correct, ETHOS would give autonomous agents a unified, transparent, and participatory governance layer that current frameworks lack.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ETHOS global registry: a blockchain-anchored identity and compliance record for every AI agent. It is driven by four interacting components: a dynamic risk classification system that maps an agent's autonomy, decision-making complexity, adaptability, and impact potential onto four tiers (unacceptable, high, moderate, minimal); smart contracts that automatically adjust tiers, revoke compliance credentials, and enforce penalties; oracles that verify and transmit off-chain performance data onto the ledger; and soulbound tokens plus zero-knowledge proofs that certify compliance credentials while preserving privacy. DAOs supply the governance layer with weighted voting and reputation scores, and a decentralized justice layer resolves disputes through verifier networks and automated smart-contract execution.

What would settle it

Run a pilot where a deliberately biased AI agent attempts to earn a compliance soulbound token; if the agent succeeds by feeding misleading performance data to the oracles, or if validators cannot detect the bias without accessing training data, the dynamic classification and automated enforcement promise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the technical components of Web3—smart contracts, DAOs, oracles, self-sovereign identity, soulbound tokens, and zero-knowledge proofs—can be assembled into a single, globally applicable governance system for autonomous AI agents. ETHOS links each agent's philosophical 'ethos' (rationality, ethical grounding, goal alignment) to four measurable attributes (autonomy, decision-making complexity, adaptability, impact potential), which feed a dynamic risk classification. The registry records every agent's decisions and performance on an immutable ledger; oracles feed real-world data into it; smart contracts recalibrate risk tiers and trigger penalties; soulbound tokens certify compliance; and zero-knowledge proofs let auditors verify claims without seeing proprietary data. Decentralized dispute resolution and AI-specific legal entities with mandatory insurance are proposed to handle accountability. The authors are explicit that this is a conceptual framework requiring empirical validation, not a deployed system.

Load-bearing premise

The system depends on oracles being able to collect and verify real-world data about an AI agent's behavior without manipulation, and on smart contracts being able to reliably judge complex AI conduct from that data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If ETHOS works, AI agents would have verifiable identities and compliance records that follow them across jurisdictions, reducing regulatory fragmentation.
Automated smart-contract enforcement would make compliance continuous rather than audit-based, since risk tiers update in real time as oracle data arrives.
The tiered structure keeps oversight proportional, so low-risk agents are not over-regulated while high-risk agents face continuous monitoring and possible revocation of compliance credentials.
Decentralized justice, with verifier networks and smart-contract execution, would make dispute resolution faster and less dependent on any single authority.
AI-specific legal entities coupled with mandatory insurance would shift liability toward the agent itself and create financial incentives for safer design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

We infer that the same registry architecture could be adapted to govern other autonomous systems, such as algorithmic trading bots or robotic fleets, if the oracle-data problem is solved.
The framework implies a need for a new class of specialists—AI auditors who design zero-knowledge proof circuits attesting to properties like fairness—which could become a service industry.
A testable prediction is that in a small pilot, agents with high adaptability scores will flip risk tiers more often than static agents, which would stress the recalibration logic.
The dependency on oracle integrity suggests the first practical bottleneck will be securing real-world data feeds, not the blockchain layer itself.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague—

The thing to know about arXiv:2412.17114 is that it's a competent blueprint, not a working system. The authors assemble a coherent framework—global registry, risk tiers, DAOs, SBTs, ZKPs, decentralized justice, AI legal entities, insurance—that I haven't seen in one place before. The integration is genuinely new as a synthesis, and the writing is clear, with a logical structure and a decent map of the recent literature (Chan et al., Adler et al., Kaal, Krishnamoorthy). Credit where due: this is a useful research agenda.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The biggest one is the enforcement perimeter. Section 5.1 says blockchain audit trails record 'every AI agent's decision, input, and outcome,' and Section 5.4 leans on oracles to bring performance data on-chain. But nothing in the paper makes that true. Agents can run on ordinary hardware, call private APIs, or simply not enroll. TEEs are floated as something to 'leverage,' not required. Oracle redundancy verifies consistency among submitted data, not completeness or ground truth. So the central claim of automated compliance monitoring only holds for agents that voluntarily opt into the registry. That's a serious gap, and the paper doesn't acknowledge it.

The paper itself concedes the absence of empirical validation, so we're not judging a broken experiment—just a proposal that oversells its enforcement guarantees. The 'ethos' framing is a bit self-referential but not harmful; it's a philosophical premise, not a circular empirical claim.

Who gets value from this? AI governance people and Web3 researchers who want a single map of the mechanisms and a list of open problems. It's not a guide for implementation.

Recommendation: send it to peer review at a venue that welcomes position papers. The reviewers should push hard on the registry-adoption problem and required vs. optional TEEs. With those addressed, the framework could be a solid agenda-setting piece. As is, it deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes the ETHOS (Ethical Technology and Holistic Oversight System) framework, a conceptual decentralized governance model for autonomous AI agents. The framework combines a four-tier risk classification with Web3 infrastructure—smart contracts, DAOs, oracles, self-sovereign identity, soulbound tokens, zero-knowledge proofs, and blockchain audit trails—to support a global AI agent registry, dynamic risk classification, automated compliance monitoring, decentralized dispute resolution, and AI-specific legal entities with mandatory insurance. The paper is explicitly a conceptual exploration and research agenda rather than an implemented system; the Discussion acknowledges the absence of empirical validation and notes that components may be incompatible or require extensive optimization.

Significance. As a synthesis, the paper is useful: it connects philosophical discussions of AI agency, risk-based regulation, and decentralized technologies into a single framework, and it openly acknowledges its own limitations and open questions. If the framework could be instantiated and validated, it would provide a concrete starting point for participatory and transparent AI governance. However, the central claims in the abstract and Section 5—that ETHOS 'establishes a global registry' and enables 'automated compliance monitoring'—are asserted rather than demonstrated, and the paper does not provide a formal model, simulation, prototype, or even an explicit statement of the assumptions under which those claims hold. The paper's strengths are its interdisciplinary breadth, its clear mapping of mechanisms to governance functions, and its candid recognition that empirical validation and pilot programs are needed; a machine-checked proof or reproducible implementation would have substantially strengthened the contribution but is not present.

major comments (3)

[§5.1, §5.3, §5.4] The 'global registry' and 'automated compliance monitoring' claims presuppose a closed world in which every relevant behavior of every deployed agent is observable, attributed to a registered self-sovereign identity, and submitted to the blockchain. The paper states in §5.1 that 'blockchain-based audit trails record every AI agent's decision, input, and outcome,' and in §5.3 that TEEs 'can be leveraged' to generate metadata, but it offers no mechanism that makes this true for agents running on ordinary hardware, calling private APIs, acting through physical actuators, or operating as modified copies. An unregistered or pseudonymous agent has no SBT to revoke and no on-chain audit trail to inspect; the enforcement perimeter is therefore undefined. The paper should either restrict its claims to a clearly stated voluntary/adoption scenario or specify a technical and institutional mechanism for mandatory attestation and registration.
[§5.4] The oracle design verifies consistency among submitted data, not completeness or ground truth. The text says multiple oracles 'cross-referencing data sources to ensure consistency before anchoring information to the blockchain' and that redundancy 'minimizes the risk of data manipulation.' However, if the agent's behavior never reaches the oracle network, or if the off-chain sources (IoT sensors, APIs, manual inputs) are compromised at the source, near-perfect oracle consensus cannot help. This gap is load-bearing because the dynamic risk classification and automated penalty mechanisms in §5.4 depend on the integrity and completeness of those data streams. The authors should add an explicit threat model and describe how source-level attestation and non-observable behavior are handled.
[§6.2 and Abstract] The proposal of 'AI-specific legal entities' is presented in the abstract as a component that 'manages limited liability,' but the body of §6.2 is substantially more cautious, stating that 'this approach is not without its worrisome implications' and that the authors are 'treading carefully' rather than endorsing immediate application. The gap between the abstract's claim and the body's caveats should be resolved: either the framework explicitly includes a legal mechanism with defined scope, conditions, and liability allocation, or the abstract should present it as an open research question. As written, the legal entity concept is an invented construct with no supporting legal or institutional analysis, so it cannot carry the weight the abstract assigns to it.

minor comments (5)

[§1 and §7] The Introduction says the paper provides 'the first survey of Decentralized Governance (DeGov) mechanisms,' but §7 cites prior work on decentralized AI governance (Kaal 2024; Krishnamoorthy 2024; Montes and Goertzel 2019). The novelty claim should be softened or qualified to avoid contradiction.
[§4] There is a typo in the risk-tier bullet: 'Unnacceptable' should be 'Unacceptable.' Also, the informal 'superheroes' and 'with great power comes great responsibility' language in the same section is stylistically inconsistent with the rest of the paper.
[§5.2] The sentence 'It is important to evalaute whether this automation can reduce delays' contains a typo ('evalaute' for 'evaluate'), and the sentence is a fragment that should be completed.
[References] Several references have garbled or truncated entries: the CSIS URL for Allen and Adamson is cut off, the author name in the Ağca et al. entry appears corrupted ('AK ˙IF A ˘GCA' in text), and the Lancieri et al. entry has a stray period in the year field. These should be corrected for archival quality.
[§3] The paper defines an 'ethos' of AI agents in terms of rationality, ethical grounding, and goal alignment, then designs governance mechanisms around that constructed definition. This is a design choice, but a sentence acknowledging that the framework's scope is bounded by that definition would help readers distinguish the normative assumption from an empirical finding.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ETHOS is a stipulated governance proposal; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a conceptual proposal paper, not an empirical derivation. The ETHOS framework is explicitly presented as a design assembled from established building blocks: the paper says 'we propose the ETHOS framework' and 'we adapt the risk-based model to categorize AI agents into four tiers.' No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, and no theorem is offered whose conclusion is identical to its assumptions. The four risk attributes (autonomy, decision-making complexity, adaptability, impact potential) are stipulated as proxies for the paper's stipulated ethos (rationality, ethical grounding, goal alignment), and the risk tiers are openly adapted from the EU AI Act. This is constructive definition rather than a hidden reduction, because the paper never claims to derive the attributes from independent first principles. The two self-citations (Chaffer and Goldston 2022 for SSI; Chaffer et al. 2024 for collaborative framing and transparency) are background support for well-known Web3 concepts and a framing recommendation; neither carries the central claim, which instead rests on the broader cited literature on SSI, oracles, ZKPs, DAOs, and the EU AI Act. The paper's own limitation statement, 'the absence of empirical validation leaves questions about the framework's real-world applicability,' further confirms that the framework is not presented as a tested consequence. Accordingly, no step reduces to its input by construction; the main risks are unsupported closed-world assumptions about oracle completeness and agent enrollment, which are correctness concerns rather than circularity. The score of 2 reflects the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations, not any substantive circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

ETHOS is a design proposal; its only 'derivations' are conceptual mappings from philosophical principles to governance mechanisms, so the ledger lists the domain assumptions that must hold for the framework to function.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption AI agents are (or will be) autonomous entities capable of independent decision-making, learning, and adaptation, deployed at scale across many domains.
Section 1 and 3 frame this as inevitable and foundational; if agents are not actually autonomous at scale, the need for the framework weakens.
domain assumption Blockchain provides transparent, immutable, and tamper-proof recordkeeping suitable for global governance.
Section 5.1 asserts 'immutable and transparent audit trails' and 'tamper-proof' records; in practice blockchains can be forked, and on-chain data does not guarantee truth.
domain assumption DAOs can produce equitable, rational governance decisions at scale via weighted and reputation voting.
Section 5.2 assumes weighted voting and reputation systems are reliable and not captured by special interests.
domain assumption Oracles can securely deliver trustworthy real-world data to the blockchain without manipulation.
Section 5.4 states oracles 'prevent data manipulation through decentralized verification and redundancy mechanisms'; this is a design goal, not an established technical guarantee.
domain assumption Smart contracts can encode and automatically enforce compliance rules, penalties, and dispute outcomes.
Sections 5.1 and 6.1 assume automated enforcement is feasible and robust, but the paper gives no mechanism for encoding complex ethical benchmarks as code.

invented entities (1)

AI-specific legal entities
purpose: Grant highly autonomous AI agents a limited form of legal status, akin to corporate entities, to manage liability and mandatory insurance.
No existing legal system recognizes AI agents as legal persons; the paper proposes this as a conceptual possibility and even cautions against immediate implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I7FREVQT

@misc{pith2026241217114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decentralized Governance of Autonomous AI Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I7FREVQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17114}
}

read the original abstract

Autonomous AI agents present transformative opportunities and significant governance challenges. Existing frameworks, such as the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, fall short of addressing the complexities of these agents, which are capable of independent decision-making, learning, and adaptation. To bridge these gaps, we propose the ETHOS (Ethical Technology and Holistic Oversight System) framework, a decentralized governance (DeGov) model leveraging Web3 technologies, including blockchain, smart contracts, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). ETHOS establishes a global registry for AI agents, enabling dynamic risk classification, proportional oversight, and automated compliance monitoring through tools like soulbound tokens and zero-knowledge proofs. Furthermore, the framework incorporates decentralized justice systems for transparent dispute resolution and introduces AI specific legal entities to manage limited liability, supported by mandatory insurance to ensure financial accountability and incentivize ethical design. By integrating philosophical principles of rationality, ethical grounding, and goal alignment, ETHOS aims to create a robust research agenda for promoting trust, transparency, and participatory governance. This innovative framework offers a scalable and inclusive strategy for regulating AI agents, balancing innovation with ethical responsibility to meet the demands of an AI-driven future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

From Multi-Agent Systems and the Semantic Web to Agentic AI: A Unified Narrative of the Web of Agents
cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The paper organizes Multi-Agent Systems, the Semantic Web, and LLM-based agents into one narrative in which the location of semantic effort migrated from platform, to data, to model.
AI Agents with Decentralized Identifiers and Verifiable Credentials
cs.CR 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A prototype shows AI agents can authenticate using ledger-anchored W3C DIDs and verifiable credentials, but LLM-orchestrated security steps fail often and once skipped authentication.
BetaWeb: Towards a Blockchain-enabled Trustworthy Agentic Web
cs.MA 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

BetaWeb promises a blockchain-enabled trustworthy agentic web, but the submitted manuscript body is a different mining-robot paper, leaving the proposal without supporting evidence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Adler, S., Hitzig, Z., 1, Jain, S., Brewer, C., Chang, W., Dir esta, R., Lazzarin, E., Mcgre- gor, S., Seltzer, W., Siddarth, D., Soliman, N., South, T., S porny, M., Srivastava, V., Bai- ley, J., Christian, B., Critch, A., Duﬀy, K., and Ho, E. (2024) . Personhood credentials: Ar- tiﬁcial intelligence and the value of privacy-preserving t ools to distingu...

2024
[2]

A., Hilligoss, H., Krishnamurthy, V., Bavitz, C., a nd Kim, L

Raso, F. A., Hilligoss, H., Krishnamurthy, V., Bavitz, C., a nd Kim, L. (2018). Artiﬁcial intelli- gence and human rights: Opportunities and risks. SSRN Elect ronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259344 Regulation - EU - 2024/1689 - EN - EUR-Lex. (2024). Europa.eu . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689 Reiling, D. ...

arXiv 2018
[3]

M., and Kemp, L

https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00 034‌ Cihon, P., Maas, M. M., and Kemp, L. (2020). Should Artiﬁcial Intelligence Governance be Cen- tralised? Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Eth ics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.337 Celso Cancela-Outeda. (2024). The EU’s AI Act: A framework f or collaborative governance. Internet of Thing...

arXiv 2020
[4]

(2021, June 30)

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2021.5 645 18 .Ast, F., and Deﬀains, B. (2021, June 30). When Online Dispute Resolution Meets Blockchain: The Birth of Decentralized Justice. Stanford Journal of Blo ckchain Law and Policy. https://stanford- jblp.pubpub.org/pub/birth-of-decentralized-justice/release/1 Balayogi, G., Lakshmi, A. V., and Sophie, S. L. (2025). Hu...

work page doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.5 2025
[6]

R., Clymer, J., Krueger, D., Dardaman, E., Campos, S., and Murphy, E

https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53 Wasil, A. R., Clymer, J., Krueger, D., Dardaman, E., Campos, S., and Murphy, E. R. (2024). Aﬃrmative safety: An approach to risk management for high-r isk AI. ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15371 Weyl, E. G., Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin. (2022). Dec entralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul. SSRN Electronic ...

arXiv 2024
[7]

, and Holtman, K

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.873437 Gipiˇ skis, R., San, A., Shen, Z., 1, C., Regenfuß, A., Gil, A. , and Holtman, K. (2024). Risk Sources and Risk Management Measures in Support of Standard s for General-Purpose AI Systems. ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.23472 Global Partnership on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (2024). http s://gpai.ai/ Greenblatt,...

work page arXiv 2024
[8]

https://doi.org/10.3389/f rai.2021.705164 Lancieri, F., Edelson, L., and Bechtold, S. (2024). AI Regul ation: Competition, arbitrage, and regulatory capture. ETH Library. https://doi.org/10.392 9/ethz-b-000708626 Lior, A. (2019). AI entities as AI agents: Artiﬁcial intelli gence liability and the AI respondeat superior analogy. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 46,

arXiv 2024
[10]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 72821-15 Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garﬁnkel, B., ... Lyle, C. (2018). The malicious use of artiﬁcial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. ArXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.22520 Brynjolfsson, E., and Ng, A. (2023). Big AI can centralize de cision-making and power...

doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2018

Show all 11 references

[65]

Buterin, V. (2014). Ethereum White Paper: A next-generatio n smart contract and decentralized application platform. Ethereum Foundation. Card, D., and Smith, N. A. (2020). On Consequentialism and Fa irness. Frontiers in Artiﬁcial Intelligence,

2014
[74]

Dragan, A

https://doi.org/10.5898/jhri.3.2.beer Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., Yao, A., Song, D., Abbeel, P., Darrel l, T., ... Dragan, A. (2024). Manag- ing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress. Science, 384(6698 ), 842–845. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn0117 Bernardi, J., Mukobi, G., Gr...

2024 doi
[1043]

Lungu, M. A. (2024). Smart Urban Mobility: The Role of AI in Al leviating Traﬃc Con- gestion. Proceedings of the International Conference on Bu siness Excellence, 18(1), 1441–1452. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2024-0118 Malek Mechergui, and Sarath Sreedharan. (2024). Goal Ali...

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adler, S., Hitzig, Z., 1, Jain, S., Brewer, C., Chang, W., Dir esta, R., Lazzarin, E., Mcgre- gor, S., Seltzer, W., Siddarth, D., Soliman, N., South, T., S porny, M., Srivastava, V., Bai- ley, J., Christian, B., Critch, A., Duﬀy, K., and Ho, E. (2024) . Personhood credentials: Ar- tiﬁcial intelligence and the value of privacy-preserving t ools to distingu...

2024

[2] [2]

A., Hilligoss, H., Krishnamurthy, V., Bavitz, C., a nd Kim, L

Raso, F. A., Hilligoss, H., Krishnamurthy, V., Bavitz, C., a nd Kim, L. (2018). Artiﬁcial intelli- gence and human rights: Opportunities and risks. SSRN Elect ronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259344 Regulation - EU - 2024/1689 - EN - EUR-Lex. (2024). Europa.eu . https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32024R1689 Reiling, D. ...

arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

M., and Kemp, L

https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00 034‌ Cihon, P., Maas, M. M., and Kemp, L. (2020). Should Artiﬁcial Intelligence Governance be Cen- tralised? Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Eth ics, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375627.337 Celso Cancela-Outeda. (2024). The EU’s AI Act: A framework f or collaborative governance. Internet of Thing...

arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

(2021, June 30)

https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2021.5 645 18 .Ast, F., and Deﬀains, B. (2021, June 30). When Online Dispute Resolution Meets Blockchain: The Birth of Decentralized Justice. Stanford Journal of Blo ckchain Law and Policy. https://stanford- jblp.pubpub.org/pub/birth-of-decentralized-justice/release/1 Balayogi, G., Lakshmi, A. V., and Sophie, S. L. (2025). Hu...

work page doi:10.3389/fbloc.2021.5 2025

[5] [6]

R., Clymer, J., Krueger, D., Dardaman, E., Campos, S., and Murphy, E

https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2024.53 Wasil, A. R., Clymer, J., Krueger, D., Dardaman, E., Campos, S., and Murphy, E. R. (2024). Aﬃrmative safety: An approach to risk management for high-r isk AI. ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15371 Weyl, E. G., Puja Ohlhaver, and Vitalik Buterin. (2022). Dec entralized Society: Finding Web3’s Soul. SSRN Electronic ...

arXiv 2024

[6] [7]

, and Holtman, K

https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.873437 Gipiˇ skis, R., San, A., Shen, Z., 1, C., Regenfuß, A., Gil, A. , and Holtman, K. (2024). Risk Sources and Risk Management Measures in Support of Standard s for General-Purpose AI Systems. ArXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.23472 Global Partnership on Artiﬁcial Intelligence (2024). http s://gpai.ai/ Greenblatt,...

work page arXiv 2024

[7] [8]

https://doi.org/10.3389/f rai.2021.705164 Lancieri, F., Edelson, L., and Bechtold, S. (2024). AI Regul ation: Competition, arbitrage, and regulatory capture. ETH Library. https://doi.org/10.392 9/ethz-b-000708626 Lior, A. (2019). AI entities as AI agents: Artiﬁcial intelli gence liability and the AI respondeat superior analogy. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 46,

arXiv 2024

[8] [10]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 72821-15 Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garﬁnkel, B., ... Lyle, C. (2018). The malicious use of artiﬁcial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. ArXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.22520 Brynjolfsson, E., and Ng, A. (2023). Big AI can centralize de cision-making and power...

doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2018