scholarship
AI & Antitrust: Reconciling Tensions Between Competition Law and Cooperative AI Development
Yale Journal of Law & Technology · Vol. 23, Spring 2021
Open the sourcehua-belfield-2021-ai-antitrust · last checked 2026-10-19 · voice: research · origin: global north
Footnote 3 attributes its definition to Ó hÉigeartaigh et al. (2020), whose published text defines AI governance differently. We treat this article as the source of the wording, which Sastry et al. (2024) and Maas (2023) reuse.
Claims that cite this source · 2
Interpretation· confidence high· passage checked
“Field of inquiry and practice” keeps together two senses that the definitions surveyed tend to separate: AI governance as a field of study (Dafoe) and as a set of instruments that organisations or governments use (Mäntymäki et al., Kenya). Hua and Belfield’s “study or practice” does the same.
Interpretation· confidence medium· passage checked
None of the definitions compared here lists incentives or infrastructure among what it governs; they govern AI itself, its lifecycle, or an organisation’s use of it. The idea is not new, though: the UN advisory body says governance frameworks should “shape incentives globally”, Japan’s guidelines run agile governance across systems that include infrastructure, and Sastry et al. treat compute as one tool of AI governance. Naming incentives, institutions, infrastructures and safeguards together as the objects of governance is AIGovSpec’s own synthesis.