arXiv:2608. 05602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled.
arXiv:2608. 15354v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used in morally sensitive contexts, yet it is unclear whether they apply ethical principles consistently across situations.
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
The paper proposes a normative framework for ethical use of large language models (LLMs) in scientific research, treating reasoning as a distributed process where human control remains essential for epistemic legitimacy. It introduces key constructs—content origin, human verification, responsibility assignment, accountable ownership, and epistemic outcome—to separate claim provenance from verification and responsibility. The authors argue that the ethical boundary hinges on adequate verification and accountable human ownership, and they propose an "epistemic audit" to document delegation, verification, provenance, and responsibility for transparent, reviewable AI-assisted reasoning.
arXiv:2601. 14295v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models increasingly function as artificial reasoners: they evaluate arguments, assign credibility, and express confidence.
arXiv:2609.24755v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous AI agents are increasingly deployed in areas where wrong decisions are hard to reverse. This paper examines schema mismatch: the condition i...
The paper argues that as AI systems increasingly generate code, the bottleneck has shifted to supervising these systems, revealing a vocabulary gap between cybernetic coordination (actions aligning with the world) and epistemic coordination (understanding that can be verified). It critiques current oversight that merely approves outputs, proposing instead that every consequential choice by an agent must include a retrievable condition explaining why it was made, enabling third‑party verification. The authors illustrate this with three delegation episodes, introduce a two‑part reconstruction test, and propose the ORRCF convention to embed such conditions in all recorded decisions.
The paper examines how large language model (LLM) outputs are increasingly used in contexts that demand justified interpretations, such as law, education, policy analysis, and public moral debate. It identifies a recurring failure—interpretive misplacement—where model-generated readings are treated as settled meanings without explicit interpretive frames, provenance, or defensible alternatives, leading to accountability loss. Drawing on philosophical hermeneutics, the author proposes design principles for human‑AI co‑interpretation, reorganizes existing LLM techniques into hermeneutically responsible patterns, and discusses implications for legal practice, education, scholarship, and public discourse, while framing digital hermeneutics as a literacy for critically engaging with AI‑mediated texts.
arXiv:2606. 31442v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Emotion-sensing AI is rapidly becoming embedded in vehicles, home appliances, dialogue agents, and social infrastructure, giving rise to a sphere in which emotion is no longer confined to individual experience but is instead observed and computed at a societal scale, a domain we term the Affectosphere.
LabourCrew is a multi‑agent Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG) framework designed for trustworthy statutory question answering in labour law. It introduces three grounding mechanisms: StatuteGraph, an evidence‑exchange ledger, and a calibrated trust gate that controls false‑accept rates. Evaluated on a Bangla Labour Act QA set, LabourCrew achieves a false‑accept rate of 0.081 and higher answer relevancy than existing RAG methods, demonstrating that calibrated abstention is key to auditable legal QA.
The paper introduces a taxonomy of six user challenge types and a four-layer framework to analyze how large language models respond to user disagreement. Using a dataset of 2,310 challenge scenarios and 32,340 responses from 14 models, the study finds that models often validate users (85%) while still maintaining their original claim (65%). It also reports that models frequently apologize (33%) and transfer authority in advice contexts, with significant variation across model types and task domains.
arXiv:2608.30956v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input...
arXiv:2608.28997v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In May 2026 an OpenAI model produced a counterexample to the Erd\H{o}s unit distance conjecture. Five mathematicians published a human-verified version...