The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control
arXiv:2606.26117v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems. Existing AI governance frameworks generally assume that stronger regulation improves accountabili
Record details
Published: 4 August 2026
Source: arXiv cs.CY
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Transparency
Retrieved: 4 August 2026
Related evidence
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.
The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control
arXiv · 23 May 2026
AI Debris: Residual Risk and the Afterlife of Failed AI Systems
arXiv · 15 May 2026
AIDLC–governance indicator framework: a lifecycle-based approach to institutional AI governance
AI & Society · 4 August 2026
Whose ethics? Whose AI? Refining the Philippine AI Regulation Act toward a Contextual AI Ethic
AI & Society · 4 August 2026
FRAMES: Guarded and Dual-Objective Skill Evolution for Agents in Policy-Governed Enterprise Workflows
arXiv · 3 August 2026
Manipulation-Proof Oblivious Audits against Deceptive Model Providers
arXiv · 5 August 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (4 August 2026), “The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control,” evidence record 15846, https://ethics.ai/record/15846 (originally published by arXiv cs.CY).
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.