The paper titled "The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem" argues that technology cannot self‑steer and that strategy must guide AI development by ensuring purpose and judgment precede compute. It presents a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review of 130 empirical studies and the Strategic AI Governance Ex‑Ante Framework (SAGE‑X), which operationalizes four strategic mindset pillars to mitigate velocity myopia, moral hazard, empirical hazard endpoints, and guardrail decay. The framework includes a calculable Moral Check Index and an Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument to enforce that AI scaling does not outpace deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.
By Zaid Amin, Rahma Santhi Zinaida, Nazlena Mohamad Ali
arXiv:2606. 28710v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We ask under what conditions an agent with a harm-minimizing policy can displace an approval-seeking (RLHF) agent in a competitive market, and when that policy is sufficient to prevent community harm.
By Darrell Lewis-Sandy
arXiv:2512. 07901v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Von Neumann founded both game theory and the theory of self-reproducing automata, but the two programs never merged.
By Kevin Vallier
arXiv:2606. 01444v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific discovery is not only answer generation but revision of the representational regime in which evidence, artifacts, operations, and verifiers are typed.
By Fiona Y. Wang, Markus J. Buehler
arXiv:2606. 04602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes.
By Hejia Geng, Leo Liu
The Civilization Framework proposes a new way for AI systems to communicate by treating the entire civilization—one human sovereign, a persistent ledger, and interchangeable agents—as the addressable party, rather than individual agents. It introduces the Embassy Protocol, an asynchronous, carrier‑agnostic overlay that routes messages to a ledger endpoint where any online agent of the receiver can process them, with commitment state on both ledgers serving as the ground truth. The framework also identifies a temporal‑weight effect in AI‑to‑AI communication, demonstrates its impact in a preregistered experiment, and explores mitigation strategies such as instruction‑level provenance labeling and sealed‑answer accuracy equivalence.
whyItMatters":"The framework aims to reduce context loss and authority bias in AI interactions by grounding communication in a shared ledger and sovereign oversight, potentially improving reliability and accountability in multi‑agent systems."
By Guangjun Liu
AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions.
The Civilization Framework proposes a new way to structure communication between AI agents by treating the civilization—comprising a human sovereign, a persistent ledger, and interchangeable agents—as the addressable party rather than individual agents. It introduces the Embassy Protocol, an asynchronous, carrier‑agnostic overlay that routes messages to a ledger endpoint where any online agent can process them, with commitment state on ledgers serving as the true record of interaction. The paper also identifies a temporal‑weight effect in AI‑to‑AI communication, demonstrates its impact in a preregistered experiment, and discusses mitigation strategies such as instruction‑level provenance labeling and sealed‑answer accuracy equivalence.
whyItMatters":"The framework offers a novel architecture that could reduce context loss and authority bias in multi‑agent AI systems, potentially improving reliability and accountability in AI‑driven interactions."
arXiv:2608. 11344v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight.
By Henry Han
arXiv:2608. 09828v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents increasingly work inside systems that govern how they delegate tasks, move information, execute actions, and use shared resources.
By Abdullah X
arXiv:2607. 07663v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself.
By Mingguang Chen, Licheng Wang, Bo Qu
arXiv:2507. 14267v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents can execute long-horizon scientific workflows, but their numerical outputs are difficult to trust: agents lose context, game verification checks, and can produce large volumes of plausible yet invalid results.
By Ziqi Wang, Hongshuo Huang, Hancheng Zhao, Changwen Xu, Shang Zhu, Jan Janssen, Venkatasubramanian Viswanathan