The paper introduces AI Exposure and Resilience (AI‑ER), a two‑dimensional framework for assessing how artificial intelligence impacts software-based business models. AI exposure measures the pressure AI exerts on a company’s value proposition, competitive position, margins, and customer access, while AI resilience evaluates the firm’s capacity to absorb that pressure, adapt, and deploy AI profitably. The framework derives metrics from current AI capabilities, deployment contexts, and research on business models and organizational adaptability, and it incorporates evidence quality and confidence to produce a traceable company profile that can be refined from public data to internal insights.
By Paul Darius Mandl (Findustrial GmbH), Peter Mandl (Munich University of Applied Sciences), Martin H\"ausl (Munich University of Applied Sciences)
arXiv:2609.21192v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Organizations deploying agentic artificial intelligence must determine more than whether a model is trustworthy; they must establish what to validate,...
By John Cuneo, David Chun, Gaurav Khanna
arXiv:2607. 02197v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The society and emerging risk-based regulatory frameworks for AI underscore the need for rigorous risk assessment to ensure safe and reliable AI systems.
By Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Aythami Morales, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Tolosana, Ruben Vera-Rodriguez, Francisco Jurado, Alvaro Ortigosa
arXiv:2607. 23365v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, autonomous driving, finance, and education.
By Muhammad Tukur, Hayatullahi B. Adeyemo, Tao Chen, Nour Ali, Anis Zarrad, Rick Kazman, Marco Agus, Rami Bahsoon
Five AI value models show how leaders can sequence AI from workforce fluency to process reinvention and build durable business advantage.
The paper argues that the rapid pace of AI-driven change creates an adaptation gap, making human resilience a crucial capability for the AI era. Resilience is defined as the ability to absorb disruption while maintaining effective action and agency, and is examined at psychological, social, and organizational levels. The authors link resilience research with AI-in-the-loop experiments, showing that AI assistance can boost productivity, empathy, and calibrated reliance, and propose a socio‑technical agenda for education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation.
By Shaoshan Liu, Anina Schwarzenbach, Yiyu Shi
The paper introduces a continuous evaluation framework that assesses both outcome-level and process-level aspects of evolving enterprise AI agent skills. It applies this framework to two variants of a Business Value Determination skill, running 240 trials across multiple models, harnesses, and specifications. The results show that while most trials pass final numerical checks, a large majority still exhibit process-level deviations, and dependency attribution reduces the number of failed checks per run. The framework also provides reusable regression tests and highlights specification sensitivity across configurations.
By Ngoc Phuoc An Vo, Aarya Doshi, Vadim Sheinin
arXiv:2412. 19754v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the nature of work, yet there is limited empirical evidence on how it affects demand for human skills.
By Elina M\"akel\"a, Matthew Bone, Mareike Sehrer, Farah Nanji, Fabian Stephany
The article examines the psychological costs that software professionals face when organizations adopt artificial intelligence (AI) in software engineering workflows. Through a case study involving 21 interviews at a large software development services company, the authors identify several negative impacts—accountability anxiety, craft identity disruption, erosion of meaning and satisfaction, increased cognitive load and workload, and uncertainty distress. They also describe how practitioners cope by restoring control, adopting protective adaptations, or absorbing the costs, arguing that AI adoption should be viewed as a human transition rather than merely a technological or organizational change.
By Adam Alami, Elda Paja, Abhishek Tiwari
arXiv:2609.05749v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Work on the risks of artificial intelligence has focused predominantly on capability risk: the danger that systems become too powerful, too autonomous,...
By Emilio Barkett, Alexander Kimpton, Daniel Graham, Yusuf Kundgol
The paper proposes a framework that connects structured hazard analysis, component-level testing, and probabilistic system modelling to assess system-level harms from AI in complex sociotechnical systems. It demonstrates the approach using the UK's Real Time Gross Settlement system, showing how adversarial inputs to LLM-based trading can shift AI behaviour, reduce system resilience, and increase the likelihood of cascading bank failures. The framework aims to provide a traceable pathway from model behaviour to systemic outcomes, enabling evidence-based governance of AI in critical infrastructure.
By Paul Vautravers, Oliver Chalkley, Gabriel Downer, Kate S, Damian Ruck
arXiv:2606. 24224v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Despite the extensive discussions of human-centric AI (HCAI) in Industry 5.
By Zhen-Yuan Ralph Liu (CUMT), Yu-Ting Wang (NFU), Jia-Jia Yan (NEOMA), Shivam Gupta (NEOMA), Mihalis Giannakis