Mind The Gap: How The Technical Mechanism Of Agentic AI Outpace Global Legal Frameworks
This article presents the first systematic comparative survey of how public bodies, international organisations, national regulators, and the private sector define agentic artificial intelligence, identifying the technical inaccuracies pervading each definition. Analysing eleven regulatory instruments and industry frameworks -- including the EU AI Act, the OECD/G7 Principles, NIST, the UK ICO, and the European Commission -- alongside six leading developer architectures, this study demonstrates a
Record details
Published: 28 March 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Agents & autonomy
Retrieved: 14 July 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.
Regulating AI Agents
arXiv · 24 March 2026
AI Agents for Sustainable SMEs: A Green ESG Assessment Framework
arXiv · 5 April 2026
AI Agents Under EU Law
arXiv · 6 April 2026
Ethical Implications of Training Deceptive AI
arXiv · 10 March 2026
A pragmatic approach to regulating AI agents
arXiv · 16 April 2026
First, Do No Harm (With LLMs): Mitigating Racial Bias via Agentic Workflows
arXiv · 20 April 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (28 March 2026), “Mind The Gap: How The Technical Mechanism Of Agentic AI Outpace Global Legal Frameworks,” evidence record 6649, https://ethics.ai/record/6649 (originally published by arXiv).
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.