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: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.
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.
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.
arXiv:2608. 03910v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values.
An LLM-based agent is a loop that reads itself. Agentic frameworks externalize identity, memory, and disposition into editable files.
arXiv:1912. 08786v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Three generations of software have transformed the role of artificial intelligence in society.
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.
arXiv:2608. 12104v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms.