arXiv subjects

Victor Frimpong

Publications and source records attributed to Victor Frimpong.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

AI Debris: Residual Risk and the Afterlife of Failed AI Systems

AI governance frameworks primarily focus on risks during the development and deployment phases, implicitly treating system withdrawal as merely a technical shutdown. This paper argues that decommissioned AI systems generate residual risk, termed "AI debris", that persists after models are removed and continues to shape institutional behaviour, accountability, and trust. AI debris is defined as the post-withdrawal socio-technical residue of AI systems, including workflow dependency, data contamination, capability displacement (deskilling), legitimacy erosion, and accountability breakdown. It is distinguished from adjacent concepts such as technical debt and safety-critical post-incident review on the grounds of temporal locus and institutional scope. The paper develops a typology of six debris domains and explains the mechanisms by which debris persists through institutional memory, path dependency, blame avoidance, and feedback effects within organisational data. To operationalise the concept, it proposes an evaluator-ready AI Debris Decommissioning Protocol (AIDP), a stepwise checklist specifying auditable evidence for freezing decision footprints, incident review, remediation, contestability, and post-withdrawal accountability assignment. It also examines the incentive conditions, including external enforcement through procurement or regulation and protected disclosure, under which such a protocol is plausibly adopted. The paper contributes a practical governance instrument for regulators, auditors, and organisations seeking to prevent "paper compliance", strengthen AI lifecycle governance, and improve institutional resilience in high-stakes decision environments.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Governance Inversion Hypothesis: Why More AI Regulation May Produce Less Organisational Control

This paper introduces the Governance Inversion Hypothesis (GIH) to explain a growing paradox in artificial intelligence (AI) governance: under conditions of increasing regulatory expansion and technological complexity, organisations may become more formally governed while simultaneously experiencing a decline in operational control over AI systems. Existing AI governance frameworks generally assume that stronger regulation improves accountability, oversight, and organisational control. This paper challenges that assumption by arguing that governance formalisation itself may contribute to the erosion of control in AI-intensive environments. Drawing on institutional theory, organisational governance research, accountability scholarship, and emerging AI governance literature, the paper develops a conceptual framework explaining how regulatory expansion may weaken operational authority through four interconnected mechanisms: authority fragmentation, symbolic governance expansion, externalisation of control, and authority paralysis. As governance systems become increasingly layered and procedurally dense, organisations may struggle to maintain coherent authority, technical visibility, escalation capability, and meaningful intervention power over opaque and externally mediated AI infrastructures. The paper extends institutional decoupling theory by introducing governance inversion as a structural condition in which governance expansion may actively undermine operational coherence rather than strengthen it. It concludes that the central risk in AI governance may not be the absence of governance structures, but the emergence of institutions that appear increasingly governed while progressively losing the capacity to govern effectively.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Algorithmic authority and the complexities of delegated decision-making: Case studies on ethical challenges for 21st-century leadership

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into high-stakes decision-making has outpaced established mechanisms for human oversight and accountability, leaving organisations with limited guidance on the responsible delegation of decision authority. This study examines four widely documented AI deployments: the UK A-Level grading algorithm implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon's automated hiring system, the COMPAS recidivism risk assessment tool used in the U.S. criminal justice system, and the Dutch SyRI welfare-fraud detection system. Using 61 publicly available sources, including government reports, organisational documents, and media accounts, we conducted a comparative qualitative analysis based on a two-phase grounded-theory coding approach. The analysis produced a 32-item codebook, which was subsequently applied across 110 coded segments, with quantitative analyses used to assess coding consistency across cases. Four recurring governance principles emerged from the findings: (1) Intentionality, whereby leaders deliberately determine when AI should be used; (2) Interpretability, requiring decision processes to be sufficiently transparent to enable explanation and scrutiny; (3) Moral Authorship, whereby identifiable human actors retain responsibility for delegated decisions; and (4) Justice, requiring delegation arrangements that minimise the reinforcement of existing inequities. These findings contribute an empirically derived framework for examining leadership accountability and AI governance in high-stakes organisational settings.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Not All That Can Be Automated Should Be Automated: Strategic Minimalism as a Disciplined and Ethically Grounded Approach to AI Adoption

As organizations accelerate the adoption and use of artificial intelligence, a common misconception arises that equates automation with progress and strategic necessity. This paper argues that not all that can be automated should be automated. It introduces Strategic Minimalism, a disciplined and ethically grounded approach to AI adoption that values purpose, proportionality, and prudence over speed and scale. Drawing on bounded rationality, virtue ethics, and frugal innovation, the study reframes technological restraint as a form of higher intelligence and responsible governance. Methodologically, the framework emerges from a structured conceptual synthesis and abductive reasoning process: the three traditions are integrated into two core dimensions (automation intensity and retained human judgment), whose intersection yields four strategic quadrants (Virtuous Minimalism, Balanced Synergy, Automation Excess, and Performative Minimalism). The framework is then conceptually stress-tested against rival explanations and boundary conditions to ensure internal coherence and analytic validity. By classifying automation into necessary, excessive, and performative types, the paper advances Responsible AI scholarship by identifying restraint as a strategic virtue that strengthens accountability, human oversight, and organizational resilience. Ultimately, it contends that in the age of intelligent machines, leadership wisdom lies not in automating more, but in knowing precisely when and why to stop.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Empathy and the Human-Moment Gaps of AI Chatbots: Insights from Empathy Displacement Theory

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are increasingly deployed in domains where empathy is essential, including healthcare, education, and customer service. However, their capacity to sustain authentic human moments remains structurally limited. This paper introduces two interlinked conceptual models to explain and address this limitation. First, the Human-Moment Gap Framework (HMGF) identifies three structural empathy deficits in AI-mediated interaction: affective surfaceism (emotional imitation without depth), memory fragmentation (lack of relational continuity), and moral framing mismatch (efficiency prioritised over dignity). Second, the paper develops the Empathy Displacement Theory (EDT), which explains how AI-simulated empathy can progressively substitute, distort, and displace genuine human empathy across individual, relational, and organisational contexts. HMGF serves as the causal foundation of EDT by demonstrating how technical and moral deficiencies in chatbot design may evolve into broader social and institutional consequences. The study is conceptual and exploratory, aiming to develop an integrative theoretical framework rather than provide empirical validation. Together, HMGF and EDT provide a unified framework for understanding AI-mediated empathy, generating testable propositions and implications for the responsible development and governance of empathetic AI systems. The paper concludes that the central challenge of empathetic AI is not whether machines can genuinely care, but how simulated care reshapes human emotional expectations, interpersonal behaviour, and institutional norms.

cs.HC↗