arXiv:2606. 00621v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence has fundamentally changed how content is now produced.
arXiv:2607. 15480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly impact society, ensuring their ethical and trustworthy deployment has become a global priority.
The paper argues that AI governance should rely on ISO-like interoperability protocols rather than solely on jurisdiction-specific laws. It proposes standardized AI nutrition labels that include metrics for bias, energy usage, and data provenance to enable machine‑readable risk communication across borders. These protocols aim to reduce regulatory fragmentation, lower barriers for SMEs, and build public trust while allowing modular evolution with technology.
arXiv:2609.25017v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deepfakes, synthetic audiovisual content produced by deep generative models, have escalated into a critical threat across civilian and military domains...
arXiv:2607. 24391v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems already govern.
arXiv:2608. 16470v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We examine the worldwide trend of mandatory labeling of generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) as a reactive, symbolic form of legislation triggered by technological panic and institutional responses.
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.
The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.
arXiv:2608. 14562v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI governance is shifting from voluntary ethics to enforceable, risk-based regulation, yet cross-jurisdictional divergence creates compliance uncertainty for operators of high-stakes AI.
The article discusses the evolution of AI across three generations—from explicit logic to neural networks to large language models (LLMs)—and how LLMs introduce new systemic risks. It applies a forensic‑psychology profiling method to identify ten key features of LLMs, such as hallucinations, bias, and cognitive atrophy, revealing an entity that confabulates, amplifies user biases, and erodes human competence. The report concludes with a four‑pillar framework for AI resilience, emphasizing cognitive sovereignty, measurable control, partial autonomy, and openness to safeguard society.
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. Yet this work has not produced a market that rewards trustworthiness.
The paper discusses the EU AI Act’s requirement for generative AI providers to embed detectable watermarks in their outputs, noting that Anthropic’s Claude models and Google’s Gemini use SynthID‑Text by default. It critiques the lack of verifiability of claims about watermark quality, privacy, and robustness, and evaluates the open‑source SynthID‑Text implementation on two open‑weight models, finding minimal impact on prose and modest correctness loss on code. The authors argue that the real governance issue is the inability to verify these assertions and outline necessary steps—such as output release, configuration disclosure, accredited audits, shared evaluation protocols, and interoperable detection—to address the gaps.
arXiv:1912. 08786v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Three generations of software have transformed the role of artificial intelligence in society.