Governing rapid technological change: Policy Delphi on the future of European AI governance

TL;DR

This paper uses a Policy Delphi study with European AI stakeholders to explore key tensions and consensus on future AI governance, emphasizing practical implementation over technical specifics and highlighting challenges in aligning desirability with feasibility.

Contribution

It demonstrates the effectiveness of the Delphi method in capturing diverse expert perspectives on AI governance and identifies critical tensions influencing future policy development in Europe.

Findings

Consensus that future AI regulation depends more on enforcement than technical details

Identified a desirability-probability gap in citizen participation and regulatory feasibility

Revealed diverse perspectives on European AI governance challenges

Abstract

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present unique challenges for policymakers that seek to govern the technology. In this context, the Delphi method has become an established way to identify consensus and disagreement on emerging technological issues among experts in the field of futures studies and foresight. The aim of this article is twofold: first, it examines key tensions experts see in the development of AI governance in Europe, and second, it reflects on the Delphi method's capacity to inform anticipatory governance of emerging technologies like AI based on these insights. The analysis is based on the results of a two-round Policy Delphi study on the future of AI governance with European policymakers, researchers and NGOs, conducted in mid-2024. The Policy Delphi proved useful in revealing diverse perspectives on European AI governance, drawing out a consensus that future-proof AI regulation will likely depend more on practical implementation and enforcement of legislation than on its technical specifics or scope. Furthermore, the study identified a desirability-probability gap in AI governance: desirable policy directions, like greater citizen participation, were perceived as less probable and feasible. This highlights a tension between desirable regulatory oversight and the practical difficulty for regulation to keep up with technological change.