More than 2,000 AI proposals are in play and none of them builds a long-term framework
The count is the story. Two thousand instruments addressing specific harms, and not one establishing the durable regulatory architecture that specific rules would sit inside.
Rules aimed at named harms — deepfakes, hiring discrimination, chatbot disclosure — are tractable to draft and easy to pass, which is why there are thousands of them. A framework requires agreeing what an AI system is, who is accountable, and which regulator has jurisdiction, and none of those has an easy answer.
The consequence is a patchwork where compliance cost scales with the number of jurisdictions rather than the level of risk, which favours firms large enough to run fifty simultaneous compliance programmes.
There is a credible counter-position — that AI can be governed through existing sectoral law rather than a new regime, without new acronyms. That argument is stronger than it sounds, and it is the main reason the framework gap may persist by choice rather than by failure.
CNBC — Over 2,000 proposals aim to govern AI. Not a single one addresses a long-term regulatory framework → · IAPP — No new acronyms required: governing AI without 'AI law' →