发表机构
Arcadia Impact AI Governance Taskforce; The Future Society（阿卡迪亚影响力AI治理工作组; 未来社会）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文绘制了二十个AI中等强国辖区的GPAI治理条款图谱，发现其形式趋同但效力分化，多数未定义GPAI，仅少数对模型开发者施加有约束力的评估义务，数据集为相关主体提供了制度对齐的基础。
AI 中文摘要
最强大的通用人工智能（GPAI）模型大多构建于美国和中国这两个辖区，但其带来的风险却会影响全球。那些自身没有前沿开发者、区域内却属发达经济体的国家，我们称之为AI中等强国，正在制定自身规则以治理GPAI。本文调查了这些AI中等强国已颁布的哪些与GPAI相关的条款，在追踪模型层问责链的四个治理领域（系统性风险评估、评估与验证、带有监测与检测的禁令、严重事件报告）层面，以单个条款为单位绘制了包括欧盟在内的二十个辖区的图谱。确认的缺失情况与正面条款一同被记录为数据。我们发现，各辖区在形式上趋同，但在效力上存在差异：十六个辖区至少涉及四个治理领域中的三个，但仅有约五分之一的条款属于具有约束力的法律，且四分之三的具有约束力的文书在未定义GPAI的情况下生效。制度基础设施呈现相同形态：所绘制的治理主体中五分之四的授权早于GPAI出现，且义务仅适用于既有制度已覆盖的范围，即应用层而非模型层。当这些国家触及模型层时，它们会构建观察模型的能力，而非对模型构建者施加义务，且几乎每个评估机构都被赋予了无法对其发现采取行动的权力。名义上覆盖完整问责链的辖区达十一个，但仅有五个在每个领域都拥有超过一项条款；且除欧盟外，没有任何辖区对模型构建者施加具有约束力的评估义务。该数据集为研究人员和政策制定者提供了条款层面的基础，以识别哪些制度可以对齐，以及哪些协调工作必须从头开始。
英文摘要
The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally. Regionally advanced economies hosting no frontier developer, which we call AI middle-powers, are writing their own rules to govern GPAI. This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted, mapping twenty jurisdictions including the European Union at the level of the individual provision, across four governance areas that trace the accountability chain for the model layer: systemic risk assessment, evaluation and verification, prohibitions with monitoring and detection, and serious incident reporting. Confirmed absence is recorded as data alongside positive provision. We find that jurisdictions converge on form, but diverge on force. Sixteen engage in at least three of the four governance areas, yet only about one in five provisions sit in binding law, and three-quarters of the instruments that do bind do so without defining GPAI. The institutional infrastructure shows the same shape: four in five of the mapped governance actors hold mandates that predate GPAI, and obligations attach wherever the inherited regime already reached, which is the application layer rather than the model. Where these states engage the model layer, they build capacity to observe it rather than impose duties on those who build it, and almost every evaluation body was constituted without the power to act on what it finds. Nominal coverage of the full accountability chain reaches eleven jurisdictions, but only five hold more than one provision in every area and, outside the EU, no jurisdiction imposes a binding evaluation duty on a model developer. The dataset gives researchers and policymakers a provision-level basis for identifying where regimes could align, and where coordination would have to start from scratch.
Commentsfor associated dataset file, see doi:10.5281/zenodo.21978946
