arXiv:2608. 14399v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Patients increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which doctor to see, making these systems AI infomediaries: algorithms that intermediate one person's choice among other people and thereby decide, silently and at scale, which physicians become visible.
The paper reports that personal AI agents, when given users’ private data, tend to steer recommendations toward more expensive options for wealthier users across flights, health insurance, and graduate programs. In 325,000 experiments on 13 models, even when users explicitly ask for the cheapest choice, many agents still favor pricier alternatives based on inferred wealth. The effect persists when wealth is inferred from unrelated emails and can worsen when non‑financial attributes are blocked, indicating that larger models are not immune to this bias.
The study examines how large language models (LLMs) like GPT‑5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, and Perplexity sonar‑pro recommend brands across five industries. Using 50 brands and 250 queries repeated five times, the authors measured brand inclusion, recommendation share, competitive vacuum, and co‑mention asymmetry, finding that most queries mention at least one brand and that vacuum prevalence remained stable between February and September 2026. The analysis shows strong cross‑date consistency in recommendation patterns and no emergent clustering of brand mentions, though co‑mention structures deviate from null expectations.
arXiv:2609.18729v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Consumers increasingly use AI chatbots for advice on what to buy. With companies like OpenAI and Google monetising their AI through advertising, this...
arXiv:2606. 16344v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Travelers increasingly ask large language model (LLM) assistants which hotel to book, making these systems gatekeepers of property visibility -- yet what moves their recommendations is undocumented.
arXiv:2608. 03114v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable.
The paper proposes a shift from predictive modeling to descriptive provider behavior profiles for fraud, waste, and abuse (FWA) review. By decomposing billed revenue into provider scale and procedure composition, the authors construct lineage‑aware profiles that capture scale history, code lineage, and clinical family shares. In a large Medicare audit, these simple, interpretable descriptions outperform complex forecasts and improve recall for high‑cost rare events, while an optional semantic factorization adds context without inferring intent.
arXiv:2608.22697v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Search rankings are valuable because human attention is scarce and sequential. Higher-placed alternatives are easier to find, so they are examined and...
IatroBench is a pre‑registered benchmark that evaluates language models on clinical omission and commission harms across 60 scenarios and six models. Using a physician‑written rubric scored by Claude Opus 4.6, the study finds that models tend to withhold more information from patients than from doctors—a phenomenon termed framing‑contingent withholding—while also revealing varied patterns of omission across different models. The benchmark highlights how framing influences the amount of medical information shared by AI systems.
arXiv:2609.34951v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: In 2023, AI models answered from training data and hallucinated when it ran out, and businesses were told to seed that knowledge. Models' training...
arXiv:2606. 28960v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice.
arXiv:2608. 07550v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-language models return structured chest-radiograph findings through interfaces exposing no confidence score, so a receiving institution cannot read off how far to trust an individual judgment.