The paper titled "The Moral Check: Strategic AI Governance for the Pacing Problem" argues that technology cannot self‑steer and that strategy must guide AI development by ensuring purpose and judgment precede compute. It presents a dual contribution: a PRISMA 2020 review of 130 empirical studies and the Strategic AI Governance Ex‑Ante Framework (SAGE‑X), which operationalizes four strategic mindset pillars to mitigate velocity myopia, moral hazard, empirical hazard endpoints, and guardrail decay. The framework includes a calculable Moral Check Index and an Enterprise Lifecycle Audit Instrument to enforce that AI scaling does not outpace deliberative moral judgment, human agency, and societal trust.
By Zaid Amin, Rahma Santhi Zinaida, Nazlena Mohamad Ali
arXiv:2410. 22526v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: To effectively address potential harms from Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, it is essential to identify and mitigate system-level hazards.
By Shalaleh Rismani, Roel Dobbe, AJung Moon
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.
By Srini Ramaswamy
The paper proposes rethinking bias in AI as a diagnostic tool rather than merely a flaw to be minimized. It introduces a multidimensional framework that examines bias across origin, lifecycle emergence, technical causes, and validation methods, covering 30 bias types, 16 verification methods, and 20 countermeasures for both traditional and generative AI. The authors present a hierarchical evidence framework distinguishing internal and external validity, and advocate for Ethics by Design principles to embed bias verification throughout the AI development lifecycle.
By Samira Maghool, Paolo Ceravolo
arXiv:2607. 03516v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Enterprise artificial intelligence is moving from isolated experimentation toward operational dependency across copilots, retrieval-augmented generation systems, autonomous agents, and AI-enabled business workflows.
By Roopam W. Sure
arXiv:2608. 03413v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve and mature, recent AI practices have moved beyond large language models (LLMs) and text or image generation tasks, increasingly integrating tools, agents, and harnesses to solve real business and industrial problems.
By Zuojun Max Shen, Yuan Qu, Pujun Zhang, Anbang Liu, Yunhao Liang
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.
By Chen Zhu, Xiaolu Wang, Weilong Zhang
arXiv:2607. 18943v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: General intelligence, of the kind that underwrites the full range of human cognitive achievement, is not a property of computational architecture alone.
By Subhomoy Bakshi
arXiv:2607. 18243v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic AI is crossing trust boundaries faster than current risk models can represent.
By Hassan Karim, Sai Sitharaman, Deepti Gupta, Danda B. Rawat
arXiv:2608. 00151v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Current evaluation frameworks for artificial intelligence focus mainly on capability, safety, and proxies such as adoption, engagement, efficiency, productivity, and financial return.
By Keyun Ruan, Jonathan D. Teubner, John M. Bremen
The paper proposes a new method for evaluating AI accountability by analyzing the structural quality of a model’s defense for its decisions, using a four‑phase dialectical protocol based on Walton’s argumentation schemes and Govier’s criteria. Applied to nine large language models and 200 ambiguous moral-choice items, the study finds that models generally defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum, though failures cluster on grounds and sufficiency and correlate with epistemic hedging. The protocol also reveals that models often present different argument schemes in justification than in reasoning, detects indefensible defenses, and highlights challenges in assessing retraction in AI alignment.
By Daan R. Henselmans, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Arno Libert
arXiv:2606. 23991v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What is an agent?
By Eric Xing, Mingkai Deng, Jinyu Hou