arXiv AI

Definitional alignment before capability alignment: a Design-Science framework for adjudicating claims about AGI

arXiv:2606. 12713v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Claims that artificial general intelligence has already arrived and claims that it remains decades away are often defended from overlapping evidence.

arXiv AI
Aug 25

Why we need an AI-resilient society- Profiling Large Language Models

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.

By Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Eva Bartz
arXiv AI
Jul 22

Governing Well in the Algorithmic Age: The Foundations of Digital Statecraft

arXiv:2607. 18483v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The digital substrate of states -- data, algorithms, infrastructure, platforms, applications -- is being governed without adequate conceptual foundations.

By Zeynep Engin, Tim Gordon, Viviana Bastidas, Tom Crick, Jon Crowcroft, Jean-Martin Denis, David J. Hand, Lauren Maffeo, Jakob M\"okander, Irene Ng, Anastasija Nikiforova, Giulio Quaggiotto, David Uriel Socol de la Osa, Rhonda Syler, Philip Treleaven, Stefaan Verhulst
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Six misconceptions about large language models: A minimal model and diagnostic taxonomy

The article presents a minimal working model for large language model (LLM) systems, emphasizing four key distinctions—pretraining vs. deployment, distribution vs. samples, types of memory, and task competence vs. agency. Using this framework, it diagnoses six common misconceptions about LLMs (next‑token prediction, regression to the mean, training‑data regurgitation, model memory, alignment, and understanding), explaining what each misconception captures correctly, where it conflates distinctions, and the implications for evaluation, design, and governance. The model is applied to AI policy language, illustrating how policy can misrepresent these distinctions and offering a diagnostic toolkit to correct such errors.

By Zhicheng Lin
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 11

From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

The paper argues that AI should be evaluated not only by principles but by concrete protocols that translate commitments into roles, requirements, records, oversight, and assessment. It introduces a rupture test linking institutional baselines to system evaluation, and distinguishes evidence‑bounded deployment from measurement‑bounded governance. The authors propose the RISE AI architecture to make bounded, evidence‑based claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment, emphasizing the need for engineering, institutional repair, and ongoing moral judgment.

By Nitesh V. Chawla, Paulo Benanti