← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Eva Bartz

Why we need an AI-resilient society- Profiling Large Language Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

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.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Sep 2

Human-AI Co-Interpretation for Responsible AI: A Hermeneutic Perspective

The paper examines how large language model (LLM) outputs are increasingly used in contexts that demand justified interpretations, such as law, education, policy analysis, and public moral debate. It identifies a recurring failure—interpretive misplacement—where model-generated readings are treated as settled meanings without explicit interpretive frames, provenance, or defensible alternatives, leading to accountability loss. Drawing on philosophical hermeneutics, the author proposes design principles for human‑AI co‑interpretation, reorganizes existing LLM techniques into hermeneutically responsible patterns, and discusses implications for legal practice, education, scholarship, and public discourse, while framing digital hermeneutics as a literacy for critically engaging with AI‑mediated texts.

By Behrooz Razeghi
llms
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Ordinary, Reasonable Chatbots: Do AI Models Track Human Legal Judgments?

The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.

By Nirav Patel, Emily Wenger, Christopher Buccafusco
llms
More like this →