Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software.
arXiv:2608. 10601v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it.
By Nicola Fabiano
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
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new measure of delegated exposure that captures whether workers actually commit tasks to AI within structured workflows. Using semantic embeddings of 888,000 agent skill specifications from GitHub and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those most vulnerable to pre-AI automation, that AAI correlates more with technical capability than with current LLM use, and that for lower‑educated occupations AAI rises with wages while it falls for higher‑educated, high‑earning workers. These patterns also appear in an independent corpus from the Manus Skills Marketplace.
By Hyeongjae Lee, Jihyang Cheon, Lanu Kim
The paper systematically classifies the EU AI Act’s high‑risk requirements, finding that only a minority directly address AI‑specific risk sources while most impose organizational and documentation obligations. From these risk‑related requirements, the authors derive a consolidated list of distinct AI‑specific risk sources, creating an EU AI Act Risk Source List. This list aims to bridge the gap between legal obligations and AI risk‑management practice by providing a structured reference for comparing the Act’s implicit risk coverage with existing AI risk taxonomies.
By Ronald Schnitzer, Mike Auer, Rumpa Choudhury, Andreas Hapfelmeier, Maximilian Hoeving, Isabelle Painter, Josiane Xavier Parreira, Sonja Zillner
arXiv:2601. 12913v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper argues that interpretability research in Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally ill-posed as existing definitions of interpretability fail to describe how interpretability can be formally tested or designed for.
By Pietro Barbiero, Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga, Francesco Giannini, Alberto Termine, Filippo Bonchi, Mateja Jamnik, Giuseppe Marra