Georgia Institute of Technology: It’s Just Distributed Computing – Rethinking AI Governance
The paper argues that “AI” isn’t a single technology but a collection of machine learning applications embedded within a broader digital ecosystem. It suggests that rather than regulating AI as a whole, policymakers should focus on the specific impacts of individual applications, as broad strategies often entail unrealistic and potentially authoritarian control of the entire digital ecosystem.
Georgia Institute of Technology: It’s Just Distributed Computing – Rethinking AI Governance
Summary of https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030859612500014X
Argues that the current approach to governing "AI" is misguided. It posits that what we call "AI" is not a singular, novel technology, but rather a diverse set of machine-learning applications that have evolved within a broader digital ecosystem over decades.
The author introduces a framework centered on the digital ecosystem, composed of computing devices, networks, data, and software, to analyze AI's governance. Instead of attempting to regulate "AI" generically, the author suggests focusing on specific problems arising from individual machine learning applications.
The author critiques several proposed AI governance strategies, including moratoria, compute control, and cloud regulation, revealing that most of these proposed strategies are really about controlling all components of the digital ecosystem, and not AI specifically. By shifting the focus to specific applications and their impacts, the paper advocates for more decentralized and effective policy solutions.
Here are five important takeaways:
- What is referred to as "artificial intelligence" is a diverse set of machine learning applications that rely on a digital ecosystem, not a single technology.
- "AI governance" can be practically meaningless because of the numerous, diverse, and embedded applications of machine learning in networked computing.
- The digital ecosystem is composed of computing devices, networks, data, and software.
- Many policy concerns now attributed to "AI" were anticipated by policy conflicts associated with the rise of the Internet.
- Attempts to regulate "AI" as a general capability may require systemic control of digital ecosystem components and can be unrealistic, disproportionate, or dangerously authoritarian.
Related Articles
Students as Agent Builders: How Role-Based Access (RBAC) Makes It Possible
How ibl.ai’s role-based access control (RBAC) enables students to safely design and build real AI agents—mirroring industry-grade systems—while institutions retain full governance, security, and faculty oversight.
AI Equity as Infrastructure: Why Equitable Access to Institutional AI Must Be Treated as a Campus Utility — Not a Privilege
Why AI must be treated as shared campus infrastructure—closing the equity gap between students who can afford premium tools and those who can’t, and showing how ibl.ai enables affordable, governed AI access for all.
Pilot Fatigue and the Cost of Hesitation: Why Campuses Are Stuck in Endless Proof-of-Concept Cycles
Why higher education’s cautious pilot culture has become a roadblock to innovation—and how usage-based, scalable AI frameworks like ibl.ai’s help institutions escape “demo purgatory” and move confidently to production.
AI Literacy as Institutional Resilience: Equipping Faculty, Staff, and Administrators with Practical AI Fluency
How universities can turn AI literacy into institutional resilience—equipping every stakeholder with practical fluency, transparency, and confidence through explainable, campus-owned AI systems.