The paper introduces the Multi‑Tiered AI Accessibility Model (MAIAM), which categorizes AI access into three tiers based on purpose, safety, and capability rather than release format. Tier 1 (AI for Learning) is broadly accessible but capability‑bounded; Tier 2 (AI for Exploration) is available under registration and tighter controls as capability increases; Tier 3 (Full‑Scale Frontier AI) requires structured, recorded, and accountable access. The authors argue that accessibility should be proportional to capability and risk, and that safety limits alone are insufficient without a regulated tiered access regime.
arXiv:2605.09504v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We show that the instruments used to measure AI offensive capability fail in two ways: (i) they overstate harm, and (ii) they credit the mode...
arXiv:2606. 26057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are granted access to tools, APIs, and other infrastructure, making them active principals in those systems.
The paper introduces FUSE, a modular framework that evaluates large language models (LLMs) for dangerous capabilities across three orthogonal pipelines: Knowledge (K), Defense (D), and Harm (H). Using a chemical‑biological module, the authors assess 12 commercial LLMs, revealing divergent profiles among models and families, and showing that newer models increase knowledge while only partially improving defense. The framework’s reliability is supported by high cross‑judge consistency and low inter‑pipeline correlations.
Safin-1.5 is a large language model that incorporates a safety‑native architecture and a recursive safety improvement loop to enhance its own safety while maintaining utility. The architecture uses persistent safety states and hazardous‑knowledge disentanglement to isolate and remove risky knowledge with minimal impact on general capabilities. An inference‑time harness extends the model’s abilities to formal reasoning by combining language understanding with symbolic inference and verification, enabling the construction of checkable proofs.
arXiv:2608. 16402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model-based agentic frameworks primarily optimize capability: whether an agent can reason, retrieve information, call tools, delegate work, and complete a goal.
arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
arXiv:2604. 15579v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: There is increasing interest in integrating AI agents that invoke tools into domain-specific commercial software, where unintended tool calls can cause serious security and safety incidents.
arXiv:2606. 12320v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise security was built to govern data boundaries: the protected surface was data at rest and in transit, and the controls -- access control, data-loss prevention, perimeter inspection -- governed crossings of that boundary.
arXiv:2606. 00448v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents increasingly rely on community-contributed skills that expand an agent's operational capability set.
The paper evaluates a task-based permission scoping architecture for AI agents, comparing a fine‑tuned RoBERTa‑large encoder to few‑shot Claude Haiku 4.5 on a 600‑prompt dataset. It shows the new system achieves comparable macro‑F1 (0.881 vs. 0.886) and higher precision (0.897 vs. 0.842), while reducing severity‑weighted residual risk from 1.12 to 0.63. The study also introduces an attack‑surface elimination metric, demonstrating that task‑granular control can close 84.4% of the severity‑weighted surface, far surpassing role‑based ceilings alone.
The article discusses how generative models increasingly act as builders, defenders, and breakers of software, challenging the assumption that full autonomy is the ultimate goal. It introduces a framework that defines measurable independence between lifecycle roles based on shared generative substrates, and proposes five autonomy levels, three human roles, and five decision criteria to guide oversight. The authors argue that human authority should focus on specification, accountability, and emergency intervention, and they outline testable hypotheses and protocols to evaluate independence and oversight effectiveness.
arXiv:2607. 05743v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents now read repositories, call tools, and execute shell commands with limited human oversight, and a fast-growing body of work studies whether the execution layer around them is actually safe.