arXiv:2609.16213v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Artificial intelligence is reshaping biological research across an increasingly connected digital-to-physical workflow. General-purpose large language...
By Candace S. Y. Chan, Aris Karatzikos, Ilias Georgakopoulos-Soares
arXiv:2606. 19899v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks.
By Patricia Paskov, Jeffrey Lee, Kyle Brady, Alyssa Worland
arXiv:2608. 05656v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies.
By Jessica Y. Bo, Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Shalaleh Rismani, Dipto Das, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Ashton Anderson
arXiv:2605. 02050v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This work establishes a framework for standardizing AI evaluation RCTs (sometimes called human uplift studies).
By Christopher Kelly, Angelica Chowdhury, Alexandra Campili, Bimpe Ayoola, Devin Barbour, Thomas Chen Dawson, Ze Shen Chin, Rokas Gipi\v{s}kis
arXiv:2607. 25648v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Public services face growing pressure to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) to close the gap between rising demand and falling resources.
By Sam Relins, Daniel Birks
The Global Index on Responsible AI 2026 (GIRAI) 2nd Edition refines its predecessor by distinguishing between framework existence and implementation, expanding from three to five thematic areas, and adding granular variables for framework quality. It evaluates responsible AI governance across five dimensions—Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and Use of AI in Public Service—using 38 indicators organized into three pillars: AI Policy, CSO Engagement, and Enabling Conditions, plus a separate Use of Unacceptable Risk AI penalty. Data from 135 country-level researchers and secondary sources are normalized to a 100-point scale, weighted by pillar importance, and used to facilitate systematic cross‑national comparisons for policymakers, civil society, and AI developers.
By Fola Adeleke, Rachel Adams, Ayantola Alayande, Daniela Benavente, Ana Florido, Nicol\'as Grossman, Leah Junck