arXiv:2606. 13962v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of artificial intelligence into human decision-making environments has introduced a previously undertheorized cost: the gradual surrender of human autonomy in exchange for access to information and computational assistance.
arXiv:2609.07741v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Persistent AI assistants are intended to extend human attention, memory, and coordination across changing digital and physical environments. To be trul...
arXiv:2607. 21547v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The rapid progress of AI has intensified the long-standing pursuit of automation: replacing human participation with algorithms wherever possible.
arXiv:2605. 28210v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Drawing on Ullmann-Margalit's concept of opting (transformative, irrevocable, and shadowed by foreclosed alternatives), we show that current AI systems raise a profound ethical problem that existing AI ethics has not fully captured: the illusion of opting, in which persons and groups encounter the deceptive appearance of meaningful consequential choice while the agency needed to become genuinely capable of choosing is weakened.
arXiv:2607. 23438v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems increasingly exhibit agentic behavior, discussions of autonomy often conflate what systems are technically capable of doing with what they should be permitted to do in practice.
arXiv:2605. 27628v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As autonomous and agentic AI systems scale in robotic and human-machine environments, managing hallucination and persistent but unjustified action remains an open challenge.
arXiv:2604. 07778v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing accountability frameworks for AI systems, legal, ethical, and regulatory, rest on a shared assumption: for any consequential outcome, at least one identifiable person had enough involvement and foresight to bear meaningful responsibility.
The paper examines how the rise of AI capable of moral reasoning could reshape meta-ethics, traditionally focused on human ethics. It proposes a framework that identifies new questions about AI’s own ethics from both human and AI perspectives, dividing them into four domains. The author explores how existing meta-ethical theories might apply to these domains and argues that many human-centered formulations will need significant revision to accommodate AI.
arXiv:2606. 23991v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What is an agent?
The paper proposes a metric framework to differentiate cognitive amplification—where AI enhances human performance without eroding human capability—from cognitive delegation, which relies heavily on AI reasoning. It introduces four metrics (CAI*, D, HRI, HCDR) and tests them in NetLogo simulations across various reliance and dependency scenarios. The results show that positive collaborative gain is only achievable when an explicit interaction term is added, indicating that mere prevention of capability erosion is insufficient for genuine amplification.
arXiv:2604. 14990v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The prospect of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is increasingly driving institutional decisions, and alignment of AGI is a hard problem.
arXiv:2607. 21268v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In many social-science research tasks, such as economics, LLM-based agents must produce outputs for which no cheap, task-complete, machine-readable correctness signal exists.
arXiv:2606. 12442v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: At present, loss of control risks have gained much prominence in public discussion, particularly in relation to AI, with extensive discourse present among academics, frontier labs, and even governments.