Skip to content

Different routes, same storm: a three-dimensional paradox view of generative AI's governance

Aug 2026 · Management Decision · 1 citation · 57 references

TL;DR

It is shown that the “dark side” of AI governance is not reducible to isolated ethical failures but emerges as an institutional outcome of competing governance logics, shifting attention from technical risks alone to the organizational architectures through which responsibility, control and legitimacy are continuously negotiated.

Abstract

This study proposes an integrative framework to explain how generative AI firms organize and adapt governance architectures to temporarily contain the conflicting logics of ethics, profit, stakeholder inclusion and technological autonomy. Drawing on paradox theory, the study employs a multiple-case design analyzing ten frontier GenAI firms: OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Mistral AI, xAI, Inflection AI, Aleph Alpha, DeepSeek, Meta and Stability AI. A novel three-dimensional analytical framework operationalizes governance tensions through systematic documentary coding and comparative analysis. The results identify five governance archetypes in GenAI firms: Contested Equilibrium, Institutionalized Ambiguity, Amoral Drift, Gilded Cage and the Founder’s Paradox. These archetypes demonstrate how attempts to incorporate ethics and accountability can create new forms of opacity, dependency and concentration of power. We interpret this recurring pattern as a form of “institutional paradoxification”, namely a theory-building construct that captures how governance mechanisms may, under certain conditions, amplify rather than resolve the tensions they are intended to contain. This study extends paradox theory into the governance of frontier GenAI firms by showing that the “dark side” of AI governance is not reducible to isolated ethical failures but emerges as an institutional outcome of competing governance logics. In doing so, it shifts attention from technical risks alone to the organizational architectures through which responsibility, control and legitimacy are continuously negotiated.

View source

Similar papers

Open access Jul 2026

The shared blind spot: why diverse AI governance approaches fail for the same reason

This work argues that anticipatory regulatory governance rests on three operational premises—categorical stability, epistemic accessibility, and manageable pace—and that AI’s emergence, opacity, and velocity violate all three in compound, and proposes three premise-level substitutions each replacing a violated precondi...

Sihyun Kim · 0 citations
Aug 2026

The Policy Umwelt: How AI Problem Representations Render Governance Alternatives Unthinkable

This paper investigates how AI narratives actively constrain the horizon of conceivable governance options. Moving beyond the established finding that narratives influence policy, we argue they fundamentally prefigure the scope of the politically thinkable by creating what we term “Policy Umwelten.” Adapting Jakob von...

G. Papyshev, Ninell Oldenburg · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

No One to Blame: A Framework of Constitutive AI Unaccountability

A reframing of AI unaccountability as a constitutive property of sociotechnical systems, an extension of the four barriers to accountability, and a practical instrument for identifying accountability voids in specific AI deployments are contributed.

Long Hoang Nguyen, Eva Späthe, S. Lins et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Towards a Just Circular Economy

The just circular economy (JCE) has emerged as a structuring normative horizon in sustainability transitions, but its analytical value remains limited by two structural gaps: the absence of a constitutive definition integrating all justice dimensions identified in the literature, and the absence of a typology capable o...

Yacine Benichou Ngueyap, Vanessa Casadella · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

A normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance: insights from the teaching of Leo XIV

The study develops a Leo XIV-informed, normatively grounded hybrid model of AI governance that extends beyond the exercise of agency over technology to fostering a more just and inclusive social order in which technology enables human flourishing.

S. Fel, Marta Choroszewicz, Jarosław Kozak · 1 citation

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 15, 2026

AI model decodes the language cells use to communicate

A new computational approach reveals how cells communicate to assemble into tissues. This could accelerate stem cell engineering, improve disease models, and inform therapies.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.