This paper examines how international AI governance frameworks address gender issues and gender-based harms. The analysis covers binding regulations, such as the EU AI Act; soft law instruments, like the UNESCO Recommendations on AI Ethics; and global initiatives, such as the Global Partnership on AI (GPAI). These instruments reveal emerging trends, including the integration of gender concerns into broader human rights frameworks, a shift toward explicit gender-related provisions, and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. Yet, some critical gaps persist, including inconsistent treatment of gender across governance documents, limited engagement with intersectionality, and a lack of robust enforcement mechanisms. However, this paper argues that effective AI governance must be intersectional, enforceable, and inclusive. This is key to moving beyond tokenism toward meaningful equity and preventing reinforcement of existing inequalities. The study contributes to ethical AI debates by highlighting the importance of gender-sensitive governance in building a just technological future.

Currently, there exists a fundamental divide between the "cognitive black box" (implicit intuition) of human experts and the "computational black box" (untrustworthy decision-making) of artificial intelligence (AI). This paper proposes a new paradigm of "human-AI collaborative cognitive enhancement," aiming to transform the dual black boxes into a composable, auditable, and extensible "functional white-box" system through structured "meta-interaction." The core breakthrough lies in the "plug-and-play cognitive framework"--a computable knowledge package that can be extracted from expert dialogues and loaded into the Recursive Adversarial Meta-Thinking Network (RAMTN). This enables expert thinking, such as medical diagnostic logic and teaching intuition, to be converted into reusable and scalable public assets, realizing a paradigm shift from "AI as a tool" to "AI as a thinking partner." This work not only provides the first engineering proof for "cognitive equity" but also opens up a new path for AI governance: constructing a verifiable and intervenable governance paradigm through "transparency of interaction protocols" rather than prying into the internal mechanisms of models. The framework is open-sourced to promote technology for good and cognitive inclusion. This paper is an independent exploratory research conducted by the author. All content presented, including the theoretical framework (RAMTN), methodology (meta-interaction), system implementation, and case validation, constitutes the author's individual research achievements.

As AI systems evolve from static tools to dynamic agents, traditional categorical governance frameworks -- based on fixed risk tiers, levels of autonomy, or human oversight models -- are increasingly insufficient on their own. Systems built on foundation models, self-supervised learning, and multi-agent architectures increasingly blur the boundaries that categories were designed to police. In this Perspective, we make the case for dimensional governance: a framework that tracks how decision authority, process autonomy, and accountability (the 3As) distribute dynamically across human-AI relationships. A critical advantage of this approach is its ability to explicitly monitor system movement toward and across key governance thresholds, enabling preemptive adjustments before risks materialize. This dimensional approach provides the necessary foundation for more adaptive categorization, enabling thresholds and classifications that can evolve with emerging capabilities. While categories remain essential for decision-making, building them upon dimensional foundations allows for context-specific adaptability and stakeholder-responsive governance that static approaches cannot achieve. We outline key dimensions, critical trust thresholds, and practical examples illustrating where rigid categorical frameworks fail -- and where a dimensional mindset could offer a more resilient and future-proof path forward for both governance and innovation at the frontier of artificial intelligence.

According to the theory of International Political Economy (IPE), states are often incentivized to rely on rather than constrain powerful corporations. For this reason, IPE provides a useful lens to explain why efforts to govern Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the international and national levels have thus far been developed, applied, and enforced unevenly. Building on recent work that explores how AI companies engage in geopolitics, this position paper argues that some AI workers can be considered actors of geopolitics. It makes the timely case that governance alone cannot ensure responsible, ethical, or robust AI development and use, and greater attention should be paid to bottom-up interventions at the site of AI development. AI workers themselves should be situated as individual agents of change, especially when considering their potential to foster Algorithmic Collective Action (ACA). Drawing on methods of Participatory Design (PD), this paper proposes engaging AI workers as sources of knowledge, relative power, and intentionality to encourage more responsible and just AI development and create the conditions that can facilitate ACA.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly influence high-stakes decision-making across global contexts, ensuring their alignment with diverse cultural values has become a critical governance challenge. This study presents a Multi-Layered Auditing Platform for Responsible AI that systematically evaluates cross-cultural value alignment in China-origin and Western-origin LLMs through four integrated methodologies: Ethical Dilemma Corpus for assessing temporal stability, Diversity-Enhanced Framework (DEF) for quantifying cultural fidelity, First-Token Probability Alignment for distributional accuracy, and Multi-stAge Reasoning frameworK (MARK) for interpretable decision-making. Our comparative analysis of 20+ leading models, such as Qwen, GPT-4o, Claude, LLaMA, and DeepSeek, reveals universal challenges-fundamental instability in value systems, systematic under-representation of younger demographics, and non-linear relationships between model scale and alignment quality-alongside divergent regional development trajectories. While China-origin models increasingly emphasize multilingual data integration for context-specific optimization, Western models demonstrate greater architectural experimentation but persistent U.S.-centric biases. Neither paradigm achieves robust cross-cultural generalization. We establish that Mistral-series architectures significantly outperform LLaMA3-series in cross-cultural alignment, and that Full-Parameter Fine-Tuning on diverse datasets surpasses Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback in preserving cultural variation...

The upsurge of policies and guidelines that aim to ensure Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are safe and trustworthy has led to a fragmented landscape of AI governance. The European Union (EU) is a key actor in the development of such policies and guidelines. Its High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) issued an influential set of guidelines for trustworthy AI, followed in 2024 by the adoption of the EU AI Act. While the EU policies and guidelines are expected to be aligned, they may differ in their scope, areas of emphasis, degrees of normativity, and priorities in relation to AI. To gain a broad understanding of AI governance from the EU perspective, we leverage qualitative thematic analysis approaches to uncover prevalent themes in key EU documents, including the AI Act and the HLEG Ethics Guidelines. We further employ quantitative topic modelling approaches, specifically through the use of the BERTopic model, to enhance the results and increase the document sample to include EU AI policy documents published post-2018. We present a novel perspective on EU policies, tracking the evolution of its approach to addressing AI governance.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems permeate critical sectors, the need for professionals who can address ethical, legal and governance challenges has become urgent. Current AI ethics education remains fragmented, often siloed by discipline and disconnected from practice. This paper synthesizes literature and regulatory developments to propose a modular, interdisciplinary curriculum that integrates technical foundations with ethics, law and policy. We highlight recurring operational failures in AI - bias, misspecified objectives, generalization errors, misuse and governance breakdowns - and link them to pedagogical strategies for teaching AI governance. Drawing on perspectives from the EU, China and international frameworks, we outline a semester plan that emphasizes integrated ethics, stakeholder engagement and experiential learning. The curriculum aims to prepare students to diagnose risks, navigate regulation and engage diverse stakeholders, fostering adaptive and ethically grounded professionals for responsible AI governance.

Purpose: The governance of artificial iintelligence (AI) systems requires a structured approach that connects high-level regulatory principles with practical implementation. Existing frameworks lack clarity on how regulations translate into conformity mechanisms, leading to gaps in compliance and enforcement. This paper addresses this critical gap in AI governance. Methodology/Approach: A five-layer AI governance framework is proposed, spanning from broad regulatory mandates to specific standards, assessment methodologies, and certification processes. By narrowing its scope through progressively focused layers, the framework provides a structured pathway to meet technical, regulatory, and ethical requirements. Its applicability is validated through two case studies on AI fairness and AI incident reporting. Findings: The case studies demonstrate the framework's ability to identify gaps in legal mandates, standardization, and implementation. It adapts to both global and region-specific AI governance needs, mapping regulatory mandates with practical applications to improve compliance and risk management. Practical Implications - By offering a clear and actionable roadmap, this work contributes to global AI governance by equipping policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders with a model to enhance compliance and risk management. Social Implications: The framework supports the development of policies that build public trust and promote the ethical use of AI for the benefit of society. Originality/Value: This study proposes a five-layer AI governance framework that bridges high-level regulatory mandates and implementation guidelines. Validated through case studies on AI fairness and incident reporting, it identifies gaps such as missing standardized assessment procedures and reporting mechanisms, providing a structured foundation for targeted governance measures.

As generative AI continues to reshape artistic production and alternate modes of human expression, artists whose livelihoods are most directly affected have raised urgent concerns about consent, transparency, and the future of creative labor. However, the voices of artists are often marginalized in dominant public and scholarly discourse. This study presents a twelve-year analysis, from 2013 to 2025, of English-language discourse surrounding AI-generated art. It draws from 439 curated 500-word excerpts sampled from opinion articles, news reports, blogs, legal filings, and spoken-word transcripts. Through a reproducible methodology, we identify five stable thematic clusters and uncover a misalignment between artists' perceptions and prevailing media narratives. Our findings highlight how the use of technical jargon can function as a subtle form of gatekeeping, often sidelining the very issues artists deem most urgent. Our work provides a BERTopic-based methodology and a multimodal baseline for future research, alongside a clear call for deeper, transparency-driven engagement with artist perspectives in the evolving AI-creative landscape.

This paper examines how competing sociotechnical imaginaries of artificial intelligence (AI) risk shape governance decisions and regulatory constraints. Drawing on concepts from science and technology studies, we analyse three dominant narrative groups: existential risk proponents, who emphasise catastrophic AGI scenarios; accelerationists, who portray AI as a transformative force to be unleashed; and critical AI scholars, who foreground present-day harms rooted in systemic inequality. Through an analysis of representative manifesto-style texts, we explore how these imaginaries differ across four dimensions: normative visions of the future, diagnoses of the present social order, views on science and technology, and perceived human agency in managing AI risks. Our findings reveal how these narratives embed distinct assumptions about risk and have the potential to progress into policy-making processes by narrowing the space for alternative governance approaches. We argue against speculative dogmatism and for moving beyond deterministic imaginaries toward regulatory strategies that are grounded in pragmatism.