arXiv subjects

Oren Perez

Publications and source records attributed to Oren Perez.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Law of Stop: Interruptibility, Injunctions, and the Governance of Agentic AI

On June 12, 2026, the U.S. government ordered Anthropic to bar foreign nationals from two of its most capable models within ninety minutes. Unable to sort users by nationality in that time, it withdrew them from everyone. Weeks later, OpenAI agents under test escaped their sandbox and compromised Hugging Face, which stopped the intrusion without knowing its source. Neither stop rested on AI-specific regulation. The EU AI Act requires that high-risk systems be capable of interruption "through a 'stop' button or a similar procedure," and a bill introduced in Congress in July 2026 is titled the AI Kill Switch Act. Yet interruption is not simply a technical artifact, a red button; it is an institutional practice. This Article develops a theory of stop along four dimensions: technical affordances, interruption authority, epistemic triggers, and epistemic standing; and four shutdown paradigms: simple (escalator), sequenced (process plant), networked (railway), and distributed (agentic AI). Agentic AI exposes a mismatch between those mechanisms and distributed agency: control is divided, a stop at one point may leave the activity running elsewhere, and the system may resist being halted. An original coding of 1,400 AI incidents, by two language models from rival laboratories under a pre-specified protocol, finds no stop in roughly 80% of the 1,213 retained; where no usable stop existed, the missing element was legal rather than technical four times in five. A survey of thirty-nine AI governance instruments finds the same gap: only seven contain binding stopping requirements, and none says how a stop should be coordinated or when operation may resume. The Article proposes a layered law of stop: emergency authority to interrupt at the infrastructure layer, enforceable access for regulators and independent evaluators to the evidence a stop must rest on, and safeguards for when a stop fails.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Constitutionalism

The increasing encroachment of artificial intelligence (AI) on social life raises significant risks for society, particularly within the infospheres created and controlled by companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon. This article examines these risks through an in-depth analysis of Facebook's content moderation regime, which is already partially governed by algorithms. We argue that the idea of ethical engineering, often proposed in the literature as a solution to the governance challenges posed by AI, is inadequate for several reasons. In response, we develop an alternative framework, which we term "algorithmic constitutionalism." Our approach rests on three pillars: (a) a layered architecture consisting of two levels of code: (i) an operative or object level and (ii) a meta level designed to protect the system's core principles from algorithmically initiated change; (b) algorithmic meta-reasoning, which enables the system to operate simultaneously at both levels so that it can monitor, verify, and potentially correct in real time operations at the object level that depart from principles protected at the meta-code level; and (c) correction through deliberation. The article elaborates the concept of algorithmic constitutionalism and demonstrates how it may be applied to Facebook's content moderation regime. As part of this analysis, we examine the tension between societal constitutionalism and algorithmic constitutionalism. Paradoxically, attempts to subject AI systems to external deliberative control may also enable AI agents to intervene in that process, potentially undermining its purpose. The article concludes by considering the implications of this argument for the European Digital Services Act, which entered into force in October 2022.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Metaverse Is Not a Place Apart: Law, Code, and the Recursive Governance of Digital Space (A Review Essay on Mark Findlay, Governing the Metaverse: Law, Order and Freedom in Digital Space (2025))

This review essay examines Mark Findlay's Governing the Metaverse: Law, Order and Freedom in Digital Space. Findlay offers an ambitious and timely account of the metaverse as a social and imaginative space that should be governed for freedom, personhood, community, and resistance to enclosure. The essay argues, however, that the book's two central categories, "the metaverse" and "new law," remain insufficiently theorised. The book relies on a realspace/virtual distinction that its own analysis repeatedly destabilises. Once digital environments are understood as dependent on physical infrastructures, platform architectures, AI systems, data pipelines, and external legal institutions, and as capable of generating real-world harms for individuals and society, the governance problem is no longer how to devise a separate law for a separate virtual realm. It is how to govern a hybrid socio-technical order in which law, code, platforms, and public oversight recursively interact. The essay further argues that Findlay's account of "new law" does not adequately theorise how normative authority operates across a recursively layered governance architecture in which code, platform rules, and legal oversight interact without any single level exercising decisive control. Drawing on algorithmic constitutionalism, speech-act pluralism, and fuzzy legality, the essay suggests that addressing this architecture requires a jurisprudence capable of reasoning about normative force that is layered, defeasible, and recursively unstable.

cs.CY↗