arXiv AI By Alexis Popovici, Andrei Ionascu, Adrian-Marius Dumitran

The Paternalistic Filter: Epistemic Injustice and Differential Refusal in LLM-Mediated History Education for Marginalized Romanian Students

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 11292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as conversational tutors, they risk institutionalizing systemic inequalities.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

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 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
Aug 24

Can Legal AI Know When It Is Wrong? And Do Students Know When It Is?

The study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit an ‘inertia of confidence’, giving incorrect legal verdicts with high certainty, and tests this on Indian Contract Act cases. Phase I audits ChatGPT, Meta AI, and Perplexity AI, introducing the High‑Confidence Error Rate (HCER) to measure dangerous certainty, finding Meta AI most prone to errors. Phase II surveys 380 Indian law students, revealing that exposure to hallucinated citations increases verification efforts but most students lack formal ethical AI training.

By Angel Mary John, Vipin Kumar Singh, Jerrin Thomas Panachakel