Di Kevin Gao

Di Kevin Gao, Jingdao Chen, Shahram Rahimi

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems grow more powerful, autonomous, and embedded in critical infrastructure, their identification and traceability become foundational to regulatory oversight and sustainable digital governance. In digitally transformed enterprises, long-term sustainability depends on transparent, accountable, and lifecycle-governed AI systems, all of which require verifiable identity. This study proposes a conceptual and architectural framework for AI identification, combining technical and governance mechanisms to support lifecycle accountability. The framework integrates five components: model fingerprinting, cryptographic hashing, blockchain-based registration, zero-knowledge proof (ZKP)-based proof of possession, and post-deployment structural change screening. We introduce a dual-layer identifier, consisting of a machine-verifiable primary hash and a human-readable secondary identifier, anchored in a tamper-resistant registry. Identity validation is supported by selective ZKP-based verification at governance-defined checkpoints, while post-deployment changes are monitored using Lempel--Ziv Jaccard Distance (LZJD) as a governance-oriented screening signal rather than a semantic performance metric. The framework establishes an enforceable and transparent identity infrastructure that enables continuity, auditability, and policy-aligned oversight across AI system lifecycles. By embedding AI identification within enterprise architecture and governance processes, the proposed approach supports sustainable innovation, strengthens institutional accountability, and provides a foundation for selective, policy-defined verification during digital transformation.

Di Kevin Gao, Andrew Haverly, Sudip Mittal et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics has emerged as a burgeoning yet pivotal area of scholarly research. This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the AI ethics literature over the past two decades. The analysis reveals a discernible tripartite progression, characterized by an incubation phase, followed by a subsequent phase focused on imbuing AI with human-like attributes, culminating in a third phase emphasizing the development of human-centric AI systems. After that, they present seven key AI ethics issues, encompassing the Collingridge dilemma, the AI status debate, challenges associated with AI transparency and explainability, privacy protection complications, considerations of justice and fairness, concerns about algocracy and human enfeeblement, and the issue of superintelligence. Finally, they identify two notable research gaps in AI ethics regarding the large ethics model (LEM) and AI identification and extend an invitation for further scholarly research.

Di Kevin Gao, Sudip Mittal, Jiming Wu et al.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in the past few years with AI-enabled applications beginning to permeate every aspect of our society. Despite the widespread consensus on the need to regulate AI, there remains a lack of a unified approach to framing, developing, and assessing AI regulations. Many of the existing methods take a value-based approach, for example, accountability, fairness, free from bias, transparency, and trust. However, these methods often face challenges at the outset due to disagreements in academia over the subjective nature of these definitions. This paper aims to establish a unifying model for AI regulation from the perspective of core AI components. We first introduce the AI Pentad, which comprises the five essential components of AI: humans and organizations, algorithms, data, computing, and energy. We then review AI regulatory enablers, including AI registration and disclosure, AI monitoring, and AI enforcement mechanisms. Subsequently, we present the CHARME$^{2}$D Model to explore further the relationship between the AI Pentad and AI regulatory enablers. Finally, we apply the CHARME$^{2}$D model to assess AI regulatory efforts in the European Union (EU), China, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US), highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and gaps. This comparative evaluation offers insights for future legislative work in the AI domain.