Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27075 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866910081740701696 |
|---|---|
| author | Osmond, Marcel Jego, Thomas |
| author_facet | Osmond, Marcel Jego, Thomas |
| contents | 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 persistent definitional gap: legal definitions consistently conflate model capability with agentic architecture, attribute cognitive deliberation to probabilistic token prediction, and treat autonomy as a scalar property rather than a structural shift from single-inference to iterative execution loops with tool integration. A consensus technical definition synthesised from developer documentation is proposed. The article examines the consequences of this gap, demonstrating that definitional imprecision produces regulatory instruments structurally incapable of governing the actual mechanisms -- system prompts, API permissions, sandboxing, and orchestration code -- that constitute agentic autonomy. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2603_27075 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Mind The Gap: How The Technical Mechanism Of Agentic AI Outpace Global Legal Frameworks Osmond, Marcel Jego, Thomas Computers and Society 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 persistent definitional gap: legal definitions consistently conflate model capability with agentic architecture, attribute cognitive deliberation to probabilistic token prediction, and treat autonomy as a scalar property rather than a structural shift from single-inference to iterative execution loops with tool integration. A consensus technical definition synthesised from developer documentation is proposed. The article examines the consequences of this gap, demonstrating that definitional imprecision produces regulatory instruments structurally incapable of governing the actual mechanisms -- system prompts, API permissions, sandboxing, and orchestration code -- that constitute agentic autonomy. |
| title | Mind The Gap: How The Technical Mechanism Of Agentic AI Outpace Global Legal Frameworks |
| topic | Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27075 |