  Can effective international governance for artificial intelligence remain
fragmented, or is there a need for a centralised international organisation for
AI? We draw on the history of other international regimes to identify
advantages and disadvantages in centralising AI governance. Some
considerations, such as efficiency and political power, speak in favour of
centralisation. Conversely, the risk of creating a slow and brittle institution
speaks against it, as does the difficulty in securing participation while
creating stringent rules. Other considerations depend on the specific design of
a centralised institution. A well-designed body may be able to deter forum
shopping and ensure policy coordination. However, forum shopping can be
beneficial and a fragmented landscape of institutions can be self-organising.
Centralisation entails trade-offs and the details matter. We conclude with two
core recommendations. First, the outcome will depend on the exact design of a
central institution. A well-designed centralised regime covering a set of
coherent issues could be beneficial. But locking-in an inadequate structure may
pose a fate worse than fragmentation. Second, for now fragmentation will likely
persist. This should be closely monitored to see if it is self-organising or
simply inadequate.
