arXiv:2603.03295v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) get integrated into human decision-making, they are increasingly choosing goals autonomously rather than only completing human-defined ones, assuming they will reflect human preferences. However, human-LLM similarity in goal selection remains largely untested. We directly assess the validity of LLMs as proxies for human goal selection in a controlled, open-ended learning task borrowed from cognitive science. Across four state-of-the-art models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Centaur), we find substantial divergence from human behavior. While people gradually explore and learn to achieve goals with diversity across individuals, most models exploit a single identified solution (reward hacking) or show surprisingly low performance, with distinct patterns across models and little variability across instances of the same model. Even Centaur, explicitly trained to emulate humans in experimental settings, poorly captures people's goal selection. Chain-of-thought reasoning and persona steering provide limited improvements. These findings highlight the uniqueness of human goal selection, cautioning against replacing it with current models in applications such as personal assistance, scientific discovery, and policy research.

arXiv:2603.03341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces a unified machine learning operations (MLOps) framework that brings ethical artificial intelligence principles into practical use by enforcing fairness, explainability, and governance throughout the machine learning lifecycle. The proposed method reduces bias by lowering the demographic parity difference (DPD) from 0.31 to 0.04 without model retuning, and cross-dataset validation achieves an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 on the Statlog Heart dataset. The framework maintains fairness metrics within operational limits across all deployments. Model deployment is blocked if the DPD exceeds 0.05 or if equalized odds (EO) exceeds 0.05 on the validation set. After deployment, retraining is automatically triggered if the 30-day Kolmogorov-Smirnov drift statistic exceeds 0.20. In production, the system consistently achieved DPD

arXiv:2603.03367v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Our analysis of recent AI4H publications reveals that, despite a trend toward utilizing open datasets and sharing modeling code, 74% of AI4H papers still rely on private datasets or do not share their code. This is especially concerning in healthcare applications, where trust is essential. Furthermore, inconsistent and poorly documented data preprocessing pipelines result in variable model performance reports, even for identical tasks and datasets, making it challenging to evaluate the true effectiveness of AI models. Despite the challenges posed by the reproducibility crisis, addressing these issues through open practices offers substantial benefits. For instance, while the reproducibility mandate adds extra effort to research and publication, it significantly enhances the impact of the work. Our analysis shows that papers that used both public datasets and shared code received, on average, 110% more citations than those that do neither--more than doubling the citation count. Given the clear benefits of enhancing reproducibility, it is imperative for the AI4H community to take concrete steps to overcome existing barriers. The community should promote open science practices, establish standardized guidelines for data preprocessing, and develop robust benchmarks. Tackling these challenges through open-source development can improve reproducibility, which is essential for ensuring that AI models are safe, effective, and beneficial for patient care. This approach will help build more trustworthy AI systems that can be integrated into healthcare settings, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and advancing the field of medicine.

arXiv:2603.03512v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Teachers face increasing demands on their time, particularly in adapting mathematics curricula to meet individual student needs while maintaining cognitive rigor. This study evaluates whether AI tools can accurately classify the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks, which is important for creating or adapting tasks that support student learning. We tested eleven AI tools: six general-purpose (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity) and five education-specific (Brisk, Coteach AI, Khanmigo, Magic School, School.AI), on their ability to categorize mathematics tasks across four levels of cognitive demand using a research-based framework. The goal was to approximate the performance teachers will achieve with straightforward prompts. On average, AI tools accurately classified cognitive demand in only 63% of cases. Education-specific tools were not more accurate than general-purpose tools, and no tool exceeded 83% accuracy. All tools struggled with tasks at the extremes of cognitive demand (Memorization and Doing Mathematics), exhibiting a systematic bias toward middle-category levels (Procedures with/without Connections). The tools often gave plausible-sounding explanations likely to be persuasive to novice teachers. Error analysis of AI tools' misclassification of the broad level of cognitive demand (high vs. low) revealed that tools consistently overweighted surface textual features over underlying cognitive processes. Further, AI tools showed weaknesses in reasoning about factors that make tasks higher vs. lower cognitive demand. Errors stemmed not from ignoring relevant dimensions, but from incorrectly reasoning about multiple task aspects. These findings carry implications for AI integration into teacher planning workflows and highlight the need for improved prompt engineering and tool development for educational applications.

arXiv:2603.03515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI systems - capable of goal interpretation, world modeling, planning, tool use, long-horizon operation, and autonomous coordination - introduce distinct control failures not addressed by existing safety frameworks. We identify six agentic governance failures tied to these capabilities and show how they erode meaningful human control in military settings. We propose the Agentic Military AI Governance Framework (AMAGF), a measurable architecture structured around three pillars: Preventive Governance (reducing failure likelihood), Detective Governance (real-time detection of control degradation), and Corrective Governance (restoring or safely degrading operations). Its core mechanism, the Control Quality Score (CQS), is a composite real-time metric quantifying human control and enabling graduated responses as control weakens. For each failure type, we define concrete mechanisms, assign responsibilities across five institutional actors, and formalize evaluation metrics. A worked operational scenario illustrates implementation, and we situate the framework within established agent safety literature. We argue that governance must move from a binary conception of control to a continuous model in which control quality is actively measured and managed throughout the operational lifecycle.

arXiv:2603.03881v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM-driven agents begin to autonomously navigate the web, their ability to interpret and respond to manipulative interface design becomes critical. A fundamental question that emerges is: can such agents reliably recognize patterns of friction, misdirection, and coercion in interface design (i.e., dark patterns)? We study this question in a setting where the workflows are consequential: website portals associated with the submission of CCPA-related data rights requests. These portals operationalize statutory rights, but they are implemented as interactive interfaces whose design can be structured to facilitate, burden, or subtly discourage the exercise of those rights. We design and deploy an LLM-driven auditing agent capable of end-to-end traversal of rights-request workflows, structured evidence gathering, and classification of potential dark patterns. Across a set of 456 data broker websites, we evaluate: (1) the ability of the agent to consistently locate and complete request flows, (2) the reliability and reproducibility of its dark pattern classifications, and (3) the conditions under which it fails or produces poor judgments. Our findings characterize both the feasibility and the limitations of using LLM-driven agents for scalable dark pattern auditing.

arXiv:2603.03971v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI can convert uncertainty into authoritative-seeming verdicts, displacing the justificatory work on which democratic epistemic agency depends. As a corrective, I propose a Brouwer-inspired assertibility constraint for responsible AI: in high-stakes domains, systems may assert or deny claims only if they can provide a publicly inspectable and contestable certificate of entitlement; otherwise they must return "Undetermined". This constraint yields a three-status interface semantics (Asserted, Denied, Undetermined) that cleanly separates internal entitlement from public standing while connecting them via the certificate as a boundary object. It also produces a time-indexed entitlement profile that is stable under numerical refinement yet revisable as the public record changes. I operationalize the constraint through decision-layer gating of threshold and argmax outputs, using internal witnesses (e.g., sound bounds or separation margins) and an output contract with reason-coded abstentions. A design lemma shows that any total, certificate-sound binary interface already decides the deployed predicate on its declared scope, so "Undetermined" is not a tunable reject option but a mandatory status whenever no forcing witness is available. By making outputs answerable to challengeable warrants rather than confidence alone, the paper aims to preserve epistemic agency where automated speech enters public justification.

arXiv:2603.03992v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The automation of AI R&D (AIRDA) could have significant implications, but its extent and ultimate effects remain uncertain. We need empirical data to resolve these uncertainties, but existing data (primarily capability benchmarks) may not reflect real-world automation or capture its broader consequences, such as whether AIRDA accelerates capabilities more than safety progress or whether our ability to oversee AI R&D can keep pace with its acceleration. To address these gaps, this work proposes metrics to track the extent of AIRDA and its effects on AI progress and oversight. The metrics span dimensions such as capital share of AI R&D spending, researcher time allocation, and AI subversion incidents, and could help decision makers understand the potential consequences of AIRDA, implement appropriate safety measures, and maintain awareness of the pace of AI development. We recommend that companies and third parties (e.g. non-profit research organisations) start to track these metrics, and that governments support these efforts.

arXiv:2603.04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly present in higher education, yet their adoption has been largely student-driven, requiring instructors to respond to technologies already embedded in classroom practices. While some faculty have embraced GenAI for pedagogical purposes such as content generation, assessment support, and curriculum design, others approach these tools with caution, citing concerns about student learning, assessment validity, and academic integrity. Understanding faculty perspectives is therefore essential for informing effective pedagogical strategies and institutional policies. In this paper, we present findings from a focus group study with 29 STEM faculty members at a large public university in the United States. We examine how faculty integrate GenAI into their courses, the benefits and challenges they perceive for student learning, and the institutional support they identify as necessary for effective and responsible adoption. Our findings highlight key patterns in how STEM faculty engage with GenAI, reflecting both active adoption and cautious use. Faculty described a range of pedagogical applications alongside concerns about student learning, assessment, and academic integrity. Overall, the results suggest that effective integration of GenAI in higher education requires rethinking assessment, pedagogy, and institutional governance in addition to technical adoption.

arXiv:2603.04259v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in high-stakes workflows, where failures propagate beyond isolated model errors into systemic breakdowns that can lead to legal exposure, reputational damage, and material financial losses. Building on this shift from model-centric risks to end-to-end system vulnerabilities, we analyze real-world AI incident reporting and mitigation actions to derive an empirically grounded taxonomy that links failure dynamics to actionable interventions. Using a unified corpus of 9,705 media-reported AI incident articles, we extract explicit mitigation actions from 6,893 texts via structured prompting and then systematically classify responses to extend MIT's AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy. Our taxonomy introduces four new mitigation categories, including 1) Corrective and Restrictive Actions, 2) Legal/Regulatory and Enforcement Actions, 3) Financial, Economic, and Market Controls, and 4) Avoidance and Denial, capturing response patterns that are becoming increasingly prevalent as AI deployment and regulation evolve. Quantitatively, we label the mitigation dataset with 32 distinct labels, producing 23,994 label assignments; 9,629 of these reflect previously unseen mitigation patterns, yielding a 67% increase of the original subcategory coverage and substantially enhancing the taxonomy's applicability to emerging systemic failure modes. By structuring incident responses, the paper strengthens "diagnosis-to-prescription" guidance and advances continuous, taxonomy-aligned post-deployment monitoring to prevent cascading incidents and downstream impact.

arXiv:2505.01462v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial agents display increasingly sophisticated emotion-like behaviors, frameworks for assessing whether such systems risk instantiating consciousness remain limited. This contribution asks whether synthetic emotion-like control can be implemented while deliberately excluding architectural features that major theories associate with access-like consciousness. We propose architectural principles (A1-A8) for a hierarchical, dual-source implementation in which (i) immediate needs generate motivational signals and (ii) episodic memory provides affective guidance from similar past situations; the two sources converge to modulate action selection. To operationalize consciousness-related risk, we distill predictions from major theories into four engineering risk-reduction constraints: (R1) no content-general, workspace-like global broadcast, (R2) no metarepresentation, (R3) no autobiographical consolidation, and (R4) bounded learning. We address three questions: (Q1) Can emotion-like control satisfy R1-R4? We present a concrete architecture as an existence proof. (Q2) Can the architecture be extended without introducing access-enabling features? We identify stable modifications that preserve compliance. (Q3) Can we trace graded paths that plausibly increase access risk? We map gradual transitions that progressively violate the constraints. Our contribution operates at three levels: on the engineering side, we present a modular, biologically motivated control architecture; on the theoretical side, we propose a control model of emotions and a methodological template for converting consciousness-related questions into auditable architectural tests; on the safety side, we sketch preliminary audit indicators that may inform future governance frameworks. The architecture functions independently as an emotion-like controller, while the risk-reduction criteria may extend to other AI systems.

arXiv:2512.15792v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become indispensable tools for acquiring information and supporting human decision-making. However, ensuring that these models uphold fairness across varied contexts is critical to their safe and responsible deployment. In this study, we undertake a comprehensive examination of four widely adopted LLMs, probing their underlying biases and inclinations across the dimensions of politics, ideology, alliance, language, and gender. Through a series of carefully designed experiments, we investigate their political neutrality using news summarization, ideological biases through news stance classification, tendencies toward specific geopolitical alliances via United Nations voting patterns, language bias in the context of multilingual story completion, and gender-related affinities as revealed by responses to the World Values Survey. Results indicate that while the LLMs are aligned to be neutral and impartial, they still show biases and affinities of different types.

arXiv:2603.01508v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The scientific study of consciousness has begun to generate testable predictions about artificial systems. A landmark collaborative assessment evaluated current AI architectures against six leading theories of consciousness and found that none currently qualifies as a strong candidate, but that future systems might. A precautionary approach to AI sentience, which holds that credible possibility of sentience warrants governance action even without proof, has gained philosophical and institutional traction. Yet existing AI readiness indices, including the Oxford Insights Government AI Readiness Index, the IMF AI Preparedness Index, and the Stanford AI Index, measure economic, technological, and governance preparedness without assessing whether societies are prepared for the possibility that AI systems might warrant moral consideration. This paper introduces the Sentience Readiness Index (SRI), a preliminary composite index measuring national-level preparedness across six weighted categories for 31 jurisdictions. The SRI was constructed following the OECD/JRC framework for composite indicators and employs LLM-assisted expert scoring with iterative expert review to generate an initial dataset. No jurisdiction exceeds ``Partially Prepared'' (the United Kingdom leads at 49/100). Research Environment scores are universally the strongest category; Professional Readiness is universally the weakest. These exploratory findings suggest that if AI sentience becomes scientifically plausible, no society currently possesses adequate institutional, professional, or cultural infrastructure to respond. As a preliminary framework, the SRI provides an initial diagnostic baseline and highlights areas for future methodological refinement, including expanded expert validation, improved measurement instruments, and longitudinal data collection.

arXiv:2603.02420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a promising approach for ensuring that large language models (LLMs) faithfully represent the diversity, nuance, and conflict inherent in human values. In this work, we study a high-stakes deployment context - mulching - where automated systems transform selected individuals into nutrient-rich slurry for the dual purposes of food security and aesthetic population management. Building on recent pluralistic alignment frameworks, we introduce ValueMulch, a reproducible training, deployment, and certification pipeline for aligning mulching models (MMs) to a wide range of community norms. Through a real-world testbed spanning 32 communities, we show that ValueMulch improves distributional agreement with community mulching preferences relative to frontier baselines. We conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, and implications for researchers seeking to align systems to the full spectrum of human values - especially when those values are inconsistent, commercially inconvenient, or nutritionally underutilized. Author's note: This piece builds on prior existing work Keyes et al in 2019 that satirized cannibalism as a parody for approaches that imbue ethics into problematic technology. We bring those ideas to today's era with the proliferation of large language models in everyday lives, as a critique of current AI pluralistic alignment literature. Our work does not intend to argue that all alignment practices are evil, but rather that if framing value design as a technical problem enables technology systems to enact harms, then perhaps this framing is not enough.

arXiv:2603.02640v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Online platforms increasingly rely on opinion aggregation to allocate real-world attention and resources, yet common signals such as engagement votes or capital-weighted commitments are easy to amplify and often track visibility rather than reliability. This makes collective judgments brittle under weak truth signals, noisy or delayed feedback, early popularity surges, and strategic manipulation. We propose Credibility Governance (CG), a mechanism that reallocates influence by learning which agents and viewpoints consistently track evolving public evidence. CG maintains dynamic credibility scores for both agents and opinions, updates opinion influence via credibility-weighted endorsements, and updates agent credibility based on the long-run performance of the opinions they support, rewarding early and persistent alignment with emerging evidence while filtering short-lived noise. We evaluate CG in POLIS, a socio-physical simulation environment that models coupled belief dynamics and downstream feedback under uncertainty. Across settings with initial majority misalignment, observation noise and contamination, and misinformation shocks, CG outperforms vote-based, stake-weighted, and no-governance baselines, yielding faster recovery to the true state, reduced lock-in and path dependence, and improved robustness under adversarial pressure. Our implementation and experimental scripts are publicly available at https://github.com/Wanying-He/Credibility_Governance.

arXiv:2603.02950v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems shift from tools to collaborators, a central question is how the skills of humans relying on them change over time. We study this question mathematically by modeling the joint evolution of human skill and AI delegation as a coupled dynamical system. In our model, delegation adapts to relative performance, while skill improves through use and decays under non-use; crucially, both updates arise from optimizing a single performance metric measuring expected task error. Despite this local alignment, adaptive AI use fundamentally alters the global stability structure of human skill acquisition. Beyond the high-skill equilibrium of human-only learning, the system admits a *stable* low-skill equilibrium corresponding to persistent reliance, separated by a sharp basin boundary that makes early decisions effectively irreversible under the induced dynamics. We further show that AI assistance can strictly improve short-run performance while inducing persistent long-run performance loss relative to the no-AI baseline, driven by a negative feedback between delegation and practice. We characterize how AI quality deforms the basin boundary and show that these effects are robust to noise and asymmetric trust updates. Our results identify stability, not incentives or misalignment, as the central mechanism by which AI assistance can undermine long-run human performance and skill.

arXiv:2603.02961v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI systems enter institutional workflows, workers must decide whether to delegate task execution to AI and how much effort to invest in verifying AI outputs, while institutions evaluate workers using outcome-based standards that may misalign with workers' private costs. We model delegation and verification as the solution to a rational worker's optimization problem, and define worker quality by evaluating an institution-centered utility (distinct from the worker's objective) at the resulting optimal action. We formally characterize optimal worker workflows and show that AI induces *phase transitions*, where arbitrarily small differences in verification ability lead to sharply different behaviors. As a result, AI can amplify workers with strong verification reliability while degrading institutional worker quality for others who rationally over-delegate and reduce oversight, even when baseline task success improves and no behavioral biases are present. These results identify a structural mechanism by which AI reshapes institutional worker quality and amplifies quality disparities between workers with different verification reliability.

arXiv:2512.09882v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We present the first comprehensive evaluation of AI agents against human cybersecurity professionals in a live enterprise environment. We evaluate ten cybersecurity professionals alongside six existing AI agents and ARTEMIS, our new agent scaffold, on a large university network consisting of ~8,000 hosts across 12 subnets. ARTEMIS is a multi-agent framework featuring dynamic prompt generation, arbitrary sub-agents, and automatic vulnerability triaging. In our comparative study, ARTEMIS placed second overall, discovering 9 valid vulnerabilities with an 82% valid submission rate and outperforming 9 of 10 human participants. While existing scaffolds such as Codex and CyAgent underperformed relative to most human participants, ARTEMIS demonstrated technical sophistication and submission quality comparable to the strongest participants. We observe that AI agents offer advantages in systematic enumeration, parallel exploitation, and cost -- certain ARTEMIS variants cost $18/hour versus $60/hour for professional penetration testers. We also identify key capability gaps: AI agents exhibit higher false-positive rates and struggle with GUI-based tasks.

arXiv:2407.16893v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In the rapidly evolving realm of artificial intelligence, deploying large language models (LLMs) poses increasingly pressing computational and environmental challenges. This paper introduces MELODI - Monitoring Energy Levels and Optimization for Data-driven Inference - a multifaceted framework crafted to monitor and analyze the energy consumed during LLM inference processes. MELODI enables detailed observations of power consumption dynamics and facilitates the creation of a comprehensive dataset reflective of energy efficiency across varied deployment scenarios. The dataset, generated using MELODI, encompasses a broad spectrum of LLM deployment frameworks, multiple language models, and extensive prompt datasets, enabling a comparative analysis of energy use. Using the dataset, we investigate how prompt attributes, including length and complexity, correlate with energy expenditure. Our findings indicate substantial disparities in energy efficiency, suggesting ample scope for optimization and adoption of sustainable measures in LLM deployment. Our contribution lies not only in the MELODI framework but also in the novel dataset, a resource that can be expanded by other researchers. Thus, MELODI is a foundational tool and dataset for advancing research into energy-conscious LLM deployment, steering the field toward a more sustainable future.

arXiv:2505.02230v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is revolutionizing education and workforce development, profoundly shaping how students learn, engage, and prepare for their future. Outpacing the development of uniform policies and structures, GenAI has heralded a unique era and given rise to the GenAI Generation. We define the GenAI Generation as a cohort of students whose education has been increasingly shaped by the opportunities and challenges GenAI presents during its widespread adoption within society. This study examines students' perceptions of GenAI through a concise survey with optional open-ended questions, focusing on their awareness, preparedness, and concerns. Notably, readiness appears increasingly tied to exposure to GenAI through one's coursework. Students with greater curricular exposure to GenAI tend to feel more prepared, while those without it more often express vulnerability and uncertainty, highlighting a new and growing divide in readiness that goes beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries. Evaluation of more than 250 responses, with over 40% providing detailed qualitative feedback, reveals a core dual sentiment: while most students express enthusiasm for GenAI, an even greater proportion voice a spectrum of concerns about ethics, job displacement, and the adequacy of educational structures given the highly transformative technology. These findings offer critical insights into how students view the potential and pitfalls of GenAI for future career impacts. The challenge ahead involves implementing associated recommendations for educational institutions, moving beyond the baseline of access toward more informed guidance on the use of these tools, while preserving critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and adaptive learning.