arXiv:2608. 15131v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Digital platforms govern by changing rules: rankings, monetization thresholds, moderation standards, verification systems, disclosure requirements, appeal processes, and access policies.
arXiv:2607. 05363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personal agents are becoming persistent user-owned intermediaries: they remember preferences, filter platform-mediated information, use tools, and negotiate with services.
arXiv:2608. 06510v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI promises a more flexible form of digital agency: systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services.
arXiv:2608. 07070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: With the rapid diffusion of AI-generated content, AI-driven misinformation is becoming increasingly pervasive and difficult to govern, undermining information credibility and social trust.
CAVEAT is a new benchmark that tests computer‑use agents (CUAs) in nine online marketplace environments where platform incentives may steer agents away from user goals. The study finds that agents succeed in choosing user‑optimal products only 78.6% of the time in neutral settings, dropping to 17.3% when steering mechanisms are active. By diagnosing three failure points—priority distortion, premature narrowing of options, and early commitment—CAVEAT-Harness interventions raise user‑optimal purchasing success by 55.0%.
arXiv:2609.05531v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: No specification says how a governed autotelic AI agent organization, where agents pursue self-generated goals inside guardrails, should be designed...
Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulat...
The paper "Beyond Training: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Inference-Time AI Governance" presents a taxonomy of twenty inference‑time mechanisms for monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each evaluated on a four‑point readiness scale using evidence from four vendors. It applies this taxonomy to a two‑dimensional adversary model and maps the mechanisms to four governance scenarios, finding that most mechanisms are commercially available but only adequate against cooperative or low‑to‑medium‑capability users, not high‑capability state‑level deployers. The study also links inference‑stage controls to hardware‑stage mechanisms through a substitution principle and reports a second‑rater reliability of 0.74. whyItMatters":"The work identifies the current gaps and readiness of inference‑time governance tools, highlighting that existing mechanisms are insufficient against powerful adversaries and thus informing future regulatory and technical development."
arXiv:2608. 06510v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Agentic AI promises systems that can act on users' behalf, from filtering content to negotiating prices to selecting services.
The paper argues that current model cards are inadequate for governing open‑weight foundation models (OWFMs). By analyzing 500 Hugging Face model cards, it identifies safety gaps in areas such as model heritage, alignment provenance, and observed behaviors. The authors propose a multi‑layered governance framework that combines model cards, acceptable use policies (AUPs), and licenses to create a more comprehensive safety artifact.
arXiv:2606. 00007v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI agents transition from isolated tools to collaborative participants in shared knowledge ecosystems, governing collective knowledge curation becomes a critical challenge.
arXiv:2603. 28825v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Using a stylised coordination problem drawn from inpatient capacity management, three archetypal forms of AI deployment are described: effort-reducing technologies, observability-oriented systems, and interventions that alter underlying incentive structures.
arXiv:2607. 15992v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the past decade, responsible AI (RAI) has produced a substantial body of practice for identifying and mitigating the risks AI poses in high-stakes settings.