arXiv:2608. 15354v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used in morally sensitive contexts, yet it is unclear whether they apply ethical principles consistently across situations.
By Pegah Nokhiz, Aravinda Kanchana Ruwanpathirana, Helen Nissenbaum
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
The paper proposes a normative framework for ethical use of large language models (LLMs) in scientific research, treating reasoning as a distributed process where human control remains essential for epistemic legitimacy. It introduces key constructs—content origin, human verification, responsibility assignment, accountable ownership, and epistemic outcome—to separate claim provenance from verification and responsibility. The authors argue that the ethical boundary hinges on adequate verification and accountable human ownership, and they propose an "epistemic audit" to document delegation, verification, provenance, and responsibility for transparent, reviewable AI-assisted reasoning.
By Kalin Stoyanov
arXiv:2601. 14295v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models increasingly function as artificial reasoners: they evaluate arguments, assign credibility, and express confidence.
By Michele Loi
arXiv:2609.24755v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Autonomous AI agents are increasingly deployed in areas where wrong decisions are hard to reverse. This paper examines schema mismatch: the condition i...
By Boris Wetzk
The paper argues that as AI systems increasingly generate code, the bottleneck has shifted to supervising these systems, revealing a vocabulary gap between cybernetic coordination (actions aligning with the world) and epistemic coordination (understanding that can be verified). It critiques current oversight that merely approves outputs, proposing instead that every consequential choice by an agent must include a retrievable condition explaining why it was made, enabling third‑party verification. The authors illustrate this with three delegation episodes, introduce a two‑part reconstruction test, and propose the ORRCF convention to embed such conditions in all recorded decisions.
By J\'er\'emie Lumbroso