
The paper surveys how major regions (EU, UK, US, Canada, China, Singapore, India, etc.) are governing AI, showing wide differences between regulation-heavy and pro-innovation models. It highlights key risks—bias, opacity, security, privacy, and job displacement—and argues for global coordination: shared standards, human-rights safeguards, and an international AI body (IAEA-like) to align oversight, certifications, and accountability.
Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence, Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence
Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence, Artificial Intelligence/legislation & jurisprudence
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
