Right, so the institution should adapt to people, rather than people adapting to AI. But as AI technology grows and grows, amplifying the predictive, coordinating, and executing power of governments, corporations, and platforms, how can the smaller capacities of an individual—to verify, to dissent, to appeal, to refuse, and to exit—grow at the same pace? Which of them, in your view, should count as preconditions of the institution, rather than remedies applied after something has gone wrong? And there is a larger extension behind that: if AI governance grows ever more dispersed among models, vendors, experts, committees, and administrative processes, how do we avoid power remaining concentrated at the top of governance while responsibility disperses until, in the end, nobody truly answers for anything? Does AI governance need to establish some form of final responsibility that cannot be delegated any further?
