Evidence record 11796 · automatically gathered

The shared blind spot: why diverse AI governance approaches fail for the same reason

AI governance instruments are proliferating, and so are their difficulties. Across major jurisdictions and international bodies, reform efforts built on substantially different premises encounter a recognizably similar pattern of failure. I argue that anticipatory regulatory governance rests on three operational premises —categorical stability, epistemic accessibility, and manageable pace—and that AI’s emergence, opacity, and velocity violate all three in compound. These premises form a distinct

Record details

Published: 19 July 2026
Source: AI & Society
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation
Retrieved: 20 July 2026

source-onlyevidence status

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (19 July 2026), “The shared blind spot: why diverse AI governance approaches fail for the same reason,” evidence record 11796, https://ethics.ai/record/11796 (originally published by AI & Society).

JSON

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.