Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the US

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.21279 v1 pith:CTLOEEV6 submitted 2024-10-05 cs.CY cs.AI

Jon Chun , Christian Schroeder de Witt , Katherine Elkins This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords regulationregulatoryperspectivesversusapproacheschinadistinctinnovation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As a powerful and rapidly advancing dual-use technology, AI offers both immense benefits and worrisome risks. In response, governing bodies around the world are developing a range of regulatory AI laws and policies. This paper compares three distinct approaches taken by the EU, China and the US. Within the US, we explore AI regulation at both the federal and state level, with a focus on California's pending Senate Bill 1047. Each regulatory system reflects distinct cultural, political and economic perspectives. Each also highlights differing regional perspectives on regulatory risk-benefit tradeoffs, with divergent judgments on the balance between safety versus innovation and cooperation versus competition. Finally, differences between regulatory frameworks reflect contrastive stances in regards to trust in centralized authority versus trust in a more decentralized free market of self-interested stakeholders. Taken together, these varied approaches to AI innovation and regulation influence each other, the broader international community, and the future of AI regulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Decoding the Multimodal Maze: A Systematic Review on the Adoption of Explainability in Multimodal Attention-based Models

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 55 papers finds explainability for multimodal attention-based models is dominated by attention-weight visualizations, while evaluation remains mostly qualitative and non-standardized.

  2. Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Small open-weight LLMs endorse prohibited actions 24% of the time under affirmative framing but 77-100% under negated framings, a polarity swing that threatens high-stakes AI deployment.

Pith tools