The paper proposes a new interdisciplinary field called Cognitive Infrastructure Studies (CIS) to examine how AI systems act as invisible, foundational cognitive infrastructures that shape what people can know and do in digital societies. It argues that these infrastructures, through anticipatory personalization and adaptive invisibility, automate relevance judgments and shift epistemic agency to non‑human systems. CIS offers methodological tools, such as infrastructure breakdown experiments, to uncover the hidden cognitive dependencies created by AI preprocessing across individual, collective, and societal levels.
How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixed-methods study with computational text analysis of...
arXiv:2608.24748v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixe...
arXiv:2606. 13658v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper examines three recent frameworks for understanding the cognitive and epistemic consequences of artificial intelligence: Tri-System Theory, Thinkframes, and System 0.
arXiv:2509.24877v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The social science of large language models (LLMs) examines how these systems evoke mind attributions, interact with one another, and transform hum...
Social simulation offers the social sciences an experimental instrument that the real world cannot supply, and generative agents have transformed it by acting as silicon samples that unite agent-based...
arXiv:2609.24911v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Social simulation offers the social sciences an experimental instrument that the real world cannot supply, and generative agents have transformed it by...
arXiv:2608. 08408v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Logics of abstraction in computational AI research often push important forms of knowledge and reflection aside: dominant standards of legitimacy separate from lived experience of harm; the goals of work misalign with the practices that operationalize them; and career demands crowd out critical reflection.
The paper reviews secondary studies and research agendas on generative AI (GenAI) in information systems, synthesizing evidence from 28 selected papers. It identifies GenAI’s transformative benefits—productivity, innovation, personalization, and democratized expertise—while highlighting challenges such as technical unreliability, ethical risks, and governance gaps. The authors propose a research agenda that shifts IS scholarship toward shaping the co‑evolution of AI capabilities with organizational routines, societal values, and regulatory institutions, emphasizing hybrid human‑AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance.
The paper proposes a diagnostic analogy framework to analyze how generative AI reshapes cultural and epistemic practices. It breaks down interventions into three coordinates—epistemic site, governing logic, and technical mechanism—to differentiate structural consequences from those that can be designed. Applying this framework to information discovery and knowledge synthesis, the authors illustrate how shifts from indexicality to inference and from editorial authority to statistical consensus generate specific cultural effects and uncover governance levers hidden by broad analogies.
arXiv:2606. 09848v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As generative and agentic AI becomes embedded in everyday products, practitioners face a persistent challenge: how to design human-AI coordination -- the ongoing mutual adjustment between users and AI systems as mediate through interfaces-that supports usability, trust, and safety.
Cognitive Digital Twins (CDTs) are dynamic computational models that represent an individual’s cognition, continuously updated with behavioral, contextual, or physiological data to predict or simulate that person’s mental processes or act as a proxy for communication and decision‑making. The paper defines CDTs, distinguishes them from related systems, and introduces a 5A governance framework—authority, autonomy, access & control, accountability, and availability—to address their unique risks. It identifies specific threats such as misrepresentation, epistemic authority shifts, shadow twins, and proxy‑power asymmetries, and proposes governance requirements for high‑risk CDTs, including stronger consent, purpose limitation, validity, traceability, contestation, independent review, and model retirement.
arXiv:2606. 12683v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the last decade, building human-level artificial general intelligence has moved from far-fetched speculation to being a concrete next-decade target for many of the largest AI organisations.