Regulating Uncertainty: Governing General-Purpose AI Models and Systemic Risk

Abstract This article critically examines the concept of systemic risk as used in the EU Act in relation to General-Purpose AI Models (GPAIMs). It argues that rather than resolving uncertainty, the Act institutionalises it, transforming systemic risk into a flexible yet uncertain legal category. Drawing on legal theory and sociological perspectives – especially systems theory – this paper shows how systemic risk functions less as a concrete threshold for intervention and more as a proxy epistemic uncertainty surrounding GPAIMs. In the analysis, three interrelated consequences are identified: the institutionalisation of regulatory and scientific uncertainty, the delegation of key decisions about the content of systemic risk to private actors, and a regulatory blind spot created by the Act’s conceptual distinction between AI models and AI systems. These developments risk undermining the Act’s goal of legal certainty, exposing the paradox of AI governance: that in attempting to mitigate unknown future risks, the law may instead reproduce regulatory uncertainty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Published
2025-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2025.10040
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.26

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Regulating Uncertainty: Governing General-Purpose AI Models and Systemic Risk

Samuel Carey
2 citations
European Journal of Risk Regulation
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
6.26
article

Regulating Uncertainty: Governing General-Purpose AI Models and Systemic Risk

Samuel Carey
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract This article critically examines the concept of systemic risk as used in the EU Act in relation to General-Purpose AI Models (GPAIMs). It argues that rather than resolving uncertainty, the Act institutionalises it, transforming systemic risk into a flexible yet uncertain legal category. Drawing on legal theory and sociological perspectives – especially systems theory – this paper shows how systemic risk functions less as a concrete threshold for intervention and more as a proxy epistemic uncertainty surrounding GPAIMs. In the analysis, three interrelated consequences are identified: the institutionalisation of regulatory and scientific uncertainty, the delegation of key decisions about the content of systemic risk to private actors, and a regulatory blind spot created by the Act’s conceptual distinction between AI models and AI systems. These developments risk undermining the Act’s goal of legal certainty, exposing the paradox of AI governance: that in attempting to mitigate unknown future risks, the law may instead reproduce regulatory uncertainty.

European Journal of Risk RegulationVol. 17(1)
Stockholm University (SE)
Marcus och Amalia Wallenbergs minnesfond
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
6.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.