Artificial Intelligence Systems

Over the last decade, building human-level artificial general intelligence has moved from far-fetched speculation to being a concrete next-decade target for many of the largest AI organisations. Achieving this goal would have profound and far-reaching impacts on human society, which raises many complex questions for the decade ahead. This report investigates how AI itself might continue to develop in a post-AGI world along the continuum of machine intelligence. The endpoint of this continuum, Universal AI, is theoretically well understood, which provides some formal grounding for the main focus of this report: the transition from human-level AGI to artificial general superintelligence, which can intuitively be understood as a system that is more intelligent and cognitively capable than large organisations of humans. After characterizing ASI, the report discusses four potential pathways from AGI to ASI: scaling AGI, AI paradigm shifts, recursive improvement, and ASI emerging from large-scale multi-agent collectives. The report then discusses possible frictions and bottlenecks along these pathways. Determining whether the impact of these frictions will be negligible or substantial raises a number of concrete open research questions. Due to large uncertainties for predicting ASI progress, it cannot be ruled out that AI progress might continue to accelerate over the next years. This could imply that the image of a single transformative step change, caused by the introduction of human-level AGI into our society, could be inaccurate. More apt might be the prospect of a series of transformative societal changes caused by AI-enabled progress and breakthroughs across many areas of science and technology. Preparing for this prospect requires a massively interdisciplinary endeavour of global scope and interest.

Two major periods of reduced funding and confidence in artificial intelligence research, commonly called the first and second AI winters, are usually explained through engineering failure, commercial disappointment, and inflated expectations. This article develops a complementary thesis: that the dominant paradigms of those periods also met genuine formal barriers, including limitations of representation, optimisation, computational complexity, statistical learnability, and high-dimensional approximation. The contribution is synthetic rather than archival. We do not claim that particular theorems mechanically caused the winters; rather, we show that several central disappointments of early AI were aligned with mathematically precise bottlenecks. We analyse these bottlenecks through the perceptron impossibility results of Minsky and Papert, the complexity-theoretic hardness of exact neural-network training established by Blum and Rivest, minimax rates for nonparametric estimation in high dimension due to Stone, vanishing-gradient analyses by Hochreiter and by Bengio and collaborators, and classical statistical learning theory in the tradition of Vapnik and Chervonenkis, Valiant, and Blumer and collaborators. We then relate these barriers to the later breakthroughs that mitigated, rather than eliminated, them.

Face recognition systems have advanced significantly through deep learning techniques, delivering high performance and robustness in complex scenarios. However, these approaches incur substantial computational overhead, limiting their in situ applicability in resource-constrained platforms such as drones, where they can address challenges including non-frontal facial imagery. Memristor-based neuromorphic systems have emerged as a compelling approach for edge AI applications, combining biologically inspired processing with efficient and scalable computation. In this work, we propose a facial recognition framework that addresses non-frontal pose variations by integrating lightweight generative adversarial network (GAN)-based pose frontalisation with memristor-based neuromorphic recognition. The experimental results on two datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of combining adversarial learning with memristive technology, achieving up to 96% identification accuracy. The proposed approach alleviates the computational bottlenecks of conventional AI and offers a scalable, efficient solution for face recognition in dynamic real-world environments.

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.

Background. Large language models and AI agents are increasingly used to support biomedical research, but native model outputs may omit key analytical steps, misuse methods, or overstate conclusions. We evaluated whether autonomous access to a medical research skill package was associated with higher-quality AI-generated transcriptomic research-analysis outputs compared with native AI without skills. Methods. We conducted an exploratory multi-model human evaluation using a non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy biomarker task. Six model backbones were tested. The evaluation included 21 anonymized outputs: 9 native-AI outputs and 12 skill-augmented outputs generated through an AI agent implementation represented by OpenClaw. Four non-expert biomedical reviewers and two blinded experts evaluated each output, with two ratings from each reviewer type. The primary outcome was expert-rated overall quality. Results. Skill-augmented outputs showed directionally higher expert overall quality than native-AI outputs (mean 5.50 vs 5.11; difference=0.39; bootstrap 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.90; Welch p=0.156). Non-expert reviewer quality showed the same direction (mean 4.72 vs 4.47; difference=0.26; bootstrap 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.80; Welch p=0.373). Expert agreement was limited (single-rating ICC=-0.15), and model-specific effects were descriptive and heterogeneous. Conclusions. Autonomous skill access showed a directional quality signal in this exploratory sample, but the signal was smaller than expert-rating noise and should not be interpreted as confirmatory evidence. The findings primarily motivate larger evaluations of skill-augmented AI agents with stronger reliability controls, platform replication, and biological-validity assessment.

The European AI Act is the first comprehensive regulation of artificial intelligence (AI), setting out extensive obligations, particularly for so-called high-risk and general-purpose AI systems. A key distinguishing feature of AI systems under the AI Act is the capability to infer. Since the AI Act does not clearly define what inference is, there is a gray area for certain data-driven systems. A specific example is credit scoring systems, which are listed by Annex III of the AI Act. At the same time, however, these are often implemented using statistical models for which it is unclear whether they have the capability to infer and thus fall under the AI definition of the AI Act at all. Motivated by statistical learning theory, this work develops a framework for grading different levels of the capability to infer. Based on the AI Act and the Commission Guidelines on the definition of an artificial intelligence system, we analyze which levels constitute sufficient capability to infer within the meaning of the AI Act and where further regulatory clarity is needed. We illustrate the framework by creating two realistic credit scoring workflows and show whether and where inference occurs in them. Our analysis illustrates that not only individual models but the entire data processing workflow must be considered. It also shows that the involvement of human experts during development can have significant influence on the capability to infer. Code can be found at https://github.com/fraunhofer-iais/inference-framework-creditscorecards.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced rapidly, but their limitations in structured and multi-hop reasoning underscore the need for graph-native, synergistic artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Graph-structured data underpins critical applications across social, biological, financial, transportation, web, and knowledge domains, making it essential to understand how LLMs can leverage graph computation for grounded, context-rich inference. Three complementary synergies are emerging: LLMs augmented with graph computation for retrieval and reasoning; bidirectional integration between LLMs and knowledge graphs (KGs), where LLMs support KG construction and curation while KGs enforce semantic constraints and factual consistency; and AI agents strengthened by graph algorithms for planning, decision making, and multi-step reasoning. In parallel, LLMs introduce new capabilities for graph data management and graph machine learning (ML) through natural language interfaces and hybrid LLM-graph neural network (GNN) pipelines. This tutorial synthesizes the algorithms, systems, and design principles driving these converging directions, offering data science and data mining researchers a unified perspective on integrating LLMs, graph data management, graph mining, graph ML, and agentic computation into next-generation graph-native AI systems.

As newsrooms integrate generative AI, journalists face a disclosure challenge: how to communicate AI involvement in ways that maintain reader trust. Current practice offers two approaches: brief one-line labels or detailed disclosures specifying human oversight, editorial accountability, and error reporting mechanisms. Neither achieves journalists' goal of building trust through transparency. An existing controlled experiment with 34 news readers show that detailed disclosures trigger a \textit{transparency dilemma}, reducing trust rather than increasing it, and risk introducing dark patterns that readers scroll past with the illusion of transparency. One-line disclosures avoid this effect but can create an information gap, prompting readers to expend cognitive effort searching for signs of AI involvement that the disclosure indicates but does not explain. Yet readers are not rejecting transparency, they proposed disclosure designs centered on user agency: detail-on-demand interactions, proportional AI-ratio visualizations, outlet-level signals, and explicit "no AI" labels. I argue that this disconnect between what practitioners believe is responsible disclosure and what users actually need is a design problem for the HCI community.

Instruction-tuned LLMs are increasingly converted into reasoning models through post-training to improve multi-step task performance. This conversion is usually optimized for reasoning accuracy, without explicitly preserving the alignment behavior of the instruction-tuned model, such as safe refusal, bias avoidance, and privacy protection. We ask: does this conversion preserve alignment? We study this question through a trustworthiness audit and find that it is not behavior-preserving by default. For a systematic analysis, we compare reasoning models produced via supervised fine-tuning, RL-based post-training, and distillation against matched instruction-tuned baselines across six trustworthiness dimensions: safety, toxicity, stereotyping and bias, machine ethics, privacy, and out-of-distribution robustness. We observe that reasoning models often improve on reasoning benchmarks but exhibit alignment regressions, including increased toxicity, amplified stereotyping, miscalibrated refusal, and contextual privacy leakage. These regressions are consistent with behavioral drift from the instruction-tuned baseline, measured by KL divergence. Overall, our results point to the broader conclusion that trustworthiness metrics are essential for evaluating reasoning models and should be reported alongside gains in reasoning capability.

OpenClaw has rapidly emerged as a transformative artificial intelligence (AI) agent framework, and its ability to autonomously execute complex, multi-step tasks has attracted an ever-growing and diverse user base. However, this capability comes with significant risks. While existing research has made important strides in characterizing these threats, such work is predominantly directed at technically sophisticated audiences. It remains largely inaccessible to non-technical users. This demographic now makes up an increasingly large and underserved portion of the community, yet it is these very users who most urgently need practical and straightforward guidance. In response, we bridge this gap through a series of interconnected efforts designed to lower the risk barrier for non-technical OpenClaw users. First, we identify and categorize seven core risks that OpenClaw users may encounter in daily usage, explaining each in plain language so that non-technical users can readily grasp the nature and potential consequences of these threats. Second, for each identified risk, we distill a set of corresponding defensive strategies into clear and actionable operational steps that are easy to follow. Third, to make protection even easier, we provide a companion OpenClaw Skill that automates key security configurations, enabling users to safeguard their systems with minimal manual intervention. Through this work, we demonstrate that safeguarding against the risks of intelligent agents need not be the exclusive domain of security experts, and that non-technical users can meaningfully participate in reducing these risks through simple, practical actions.

This position paper argues that contemporary AI paradigms are insufficient for supporting complex global goals and introduces Planet-Centered AI (PCAI) as a design philosophy and research agenda that reorients AI toward planetary-scale socio-ecological systems and their long-term trajectories. A planet-centered approach is grounded in systems thinking, treating Earth as an interconnected whole of which humans are part. We diagnose recurring limitations across AI frameworks, many of which remain human-centered, and show why these become especially consequential under current planetary conditions characterized by systemic risk, non-stationarity, and deep uncertainty. We then articulate how PCAI reshapes the AI lifecycle, from problem formulation and model design to evaluation and deployment, by emphasizing alignment with global agendas, developing system-aware AI foundations, trajectory-oriented evaluation, and monitorability. Finally, we advance a falsifiable claim: AI systems optimized without explicit consideration of systemic consequences are more likely to exacerbate systemic instability than to mitigate it.

The environmental impact of training large language models (LLMs) is increasingly scrutinised, yet most published estimates focus on operational energy and disclose little about manufacturing (embodied) emissions, water consumption, or the underlying highperformance computing (HPC) infrastructure. We present a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the pre-training of Lucie 7B, an open-source multilingual Foundation Model developed by the OpenLLM-France consortium and trained on the NVIDIA H100 partition of the Jean Zay supercomputer operated by IDRIS (CNRS). The assessment is framed by the AFNOR SPEC 2314 "Frugal AI" reference and applies the Labos 1point5 methodology for greenhouse gas(GHG) accounting in computing. The study scope extends from data preparation to model validation, and integrates the full life cycle of the hardware infrastructure: manufacturing (including raw-material extraction), use (compute, temporary storage, system administration, cooling), and end-of-life. We report (i) an annual footprint of 417.5 tCO2eq for the Jean Zay H100 partition, split almost equally between manufacturing and operation; (ii) an effective intensity of 36.7 gCO2eq per H100 GPU-hour; (iii) a total training footprint of 21 tCO2eq for Lucie 7B (574 564 H100 GPU-hours), inclusive of amortised hardware manufacturing; (iv) on-site water consumption of approximately 76m3 for the training campaign and an annual Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) of 0.07 L/kWh for IDRIS; (v) a heat-reuse factor (ERF) of 0.37 thanks to waste-heat recovery into the urban heating network. The study contributes one of the few publicly documented LCAs of an LLM training campaign that explicitly couples operational data with embodied emissions decomposed by subsystem (compute, storage, power chain, cooling), and discusses the implications for the design of frugal-by-construction AI systems in Europe.

The rapid expansion of AI globally has led to the proliferation of energy-intensive hyperscale data centres (DCs), making them as a structurally challenging component in power system planning and operation. Using a spatially explicit optimisation model of Europe across 21 AI growth scenarios, we systematically quantify additional demand, capacity requirements, emissions, and operational impacts of DCs. Results indicate that AI could drive 73-723 TWh of extra demand by 2050, risking cumulative emissions overshoots of 67-181 MtCO2 between 2030 and 2050. Our analysis indicates that after 2030, the geography of AI infrastructure will be shaped more by firm power and system flexibility than by the mere abundance of clean energy. In moderate scenarios, AI requires an additional of 200 hours of firm generation, which increases LCOE by 35 EUR/MWh in key hubs. We show that even under the pessimistic scenarios, existing infrastructure would require 70 GW additional capacity, while under managed growth pathways, this expansion could reach 226 GW. We further find DCs workload dynamics strongly shape energy dispatch, system flexibility, and emissions, while improved efficiency significantly reduces capacity needs, and system peaks. While our findings suggest that net-zero targets for 2050 may be achieved, critical emission risks may appear in the intermediate years, and the EU may compromise its carbon-neutral goals unless policies adapt to this accelerating digital transformation.

Work on emergent misalignment' shows that finetuning LLMs on narrow tasks can induce broadly misaligned behavior. This supports the persona selection' (PSM) hypothesis: during pre-training, LLMs learn to simulate different characters and perspectives, which can be elicited and refined during post-training. This paper investigates the converse phenomenon, emergent alignment', and uses it to support and refine the PSM and motivate a novel desideratum for alignment. We finetune a helpful-only model on broad and narrow safety tasks. To create SFT samples, we follow the Constitutional AI' (CAI) approach and use four constitutions which encode reasonable alignment strategies: deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and aligning AIs as subordinate to human authority. For each of those models, we show that finetuning on two narrow safety sub-categories reliably induces emergent alignment over a representative set of general safety categories, and on safety subcategories that we directly filtered-out of the data sets used for narrow alignment. To test the PSM' using a more fine-grained evaluation, we used a multidimensional ethical persona' diagnostic. For each constitutionally finetuned (broad/narrow) model, we evaluate how well their behavior matches their expected signature profile. Our results show that our CAI models acquire their expected ``ethical persona'' -- e.g., the model narrowly fine-tuned on SFT samples created using the consequentialist constitution agrees significantly more with utilitarian than deontological beliefs. Yet our coarse and fine-grained evaluations show that there are significant differences across our (broad/narrow) finetuned CAI models in how well they project. We conclude that alignment strategies should be evaluated, not just on their (in-distribution) general safety performance, but also specifically on their degree of projectability.

Robot middleware faces a new role in the era of Physical AI. Learned policies, planners, and vision-language-action (VLA) models now enter deployed robots as causal participants on the control path, but the layer that integrates them with timing, scheduling, and network has not been named. Recent language-agent work names this layer the harness, the external system that mediates tools, manages state, bounds resources, and records execution. The robotics community has not yet adopted this framing, and we propose that robot middleware is that harness. A Physical AI harness differs from a software harness in where it intervenes. A software harness mediates at tool-call boundaries. A Physical AI harness must mediate at control, computing, and communication simultaneously, because a learned policy's output crosses all three: its commands shift the trajectory, its inference time shifts the schedule, and its payload shifts the bandwidth. Robot middleware is the lowest robot-stack layer with mediating abstractions over all three, so it is best positioned to compose their enforcement. It already provides most of what a harness needs but lacks the enforcement for an AI model. We name this missing enforcement as three functions: Projection gates each output at emission, Isolation bounds the model's execution and transmission slot, and Transfer falls back to a verified baseline when checks fail. Each appears today as hand-built application code in deployed robot systems, built on surfaces robot middleware already provides. Robot middleware should host them not as the best single-axis enforcer but as the layer that composes all three. We sketch this as a ROS 2 Harness Profile, a deployment artifact that carries an AI model's declared output region, inference budget, and operating regime while the middleware enforces them across ROS 2, DDS, and Zenoh.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Recent advancements in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in open-world reasoning and understanding. However, a critical ambiguity persists: it remains unclear whether these models genuinely synthesize cross-modal information to construct physically grounded reasoning chains, or if they merely exploit strong language priors to mask single-modality reliance, thereby hallucinating advanced multimodal capabilities. Motivated by this, and to rigorously mitigate language modality bias and shortcuts, we propose a novel multimodal Chrono}logical Physical Dynamics Reasoning Benchmark ChronoPhyBench, which unifies next state prediction with Visual Question Answering (VQA) paradigms by conditioning on historical video context and textual captions to enforce models to deduce subsequent physical states through both single image selection and the inherently more complex task of multiple frame chronological sorting. Concurrently, we construct a large-scale multimodal reasoning dataset curated using the ChronoPhyBench criteria, comprising over 10,000 long-form videos paired with meticulously annotated captions, totaling 5M tokens. Our experimental evaluations reveal a stark contrast to conclusions drawn by previous benchmarks. The capacity of current open-source models to perform physically grounded multimodal reasoning remains in its infancy. Ultimately, this work seeks to systematically stress-test the reasoning capabilities of multimodal models, quantify hallucination rates, and advance the development of Physical AI, thereby providing the community with a robust and transparent evaluation framework toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various tasks, raising expectations for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This position paper argues that integrating explicit memory is the cornerstone for advancing LLMs toward AGI. The key reason is that the underlying learning mechanism of LLMs is highly analogous to human implicit memory. However, higher-order cognitive functions necessary for AGI, such as long-term strategic planning, metacognition, and symbolic reasoning, heavily rely on hippocampal explicit memory and cannot arise solely from implicit statistical learning. Drawing on findings from neuroscience, I advance this perspective and complement it with computational requirements for artificial explicit memory systems, hoping to foster further research and lay the groundwork for explicit memory integration.

Large language models are rapidly becoming infrastructural components in high-stakes institutional settings, including public administration, legal reasoning, and healthcare, where opacity is not merely inconvenient but institutionally and legally untenable. Existing approaches to explainability are predominantly post-hoc, offering unstable, non-contestable accounts that have no formal relationship to the reasoning process that produced the output. We argue that the problem is not the absence of explanation but the absence of structured reasoning in the first place. This paper makes the case for a fundamentally different architecture, which we call the Glassbox Framework, in which Bayesian networks serve as transparent, ante-hoc mediation layers for generative models. Bayesian networks encode domain knowledge, causal assumptions, and probabilistic dependencies before inference occurs, enabling auditable reasoning traces, uncertainty quantification, and contestable outputs. We characterise the architecture of this framework and ground it in a benefit eligibility scenario, identifying the foundational challenges spanning semantic alignment, dynamic model construction, probabilistic grounding, and human governance that must be solved to realise it at scale. By shifting from post-hoc explanation to ante-hoc probabilistic mediation, this work outlines a principled path toward AI systems that are not only powerful but fundamentally accountable.

AI systems increasingly delegate decisions to specialized models, evaluators, tools, and supervisory controllers. The central AI problem is no longer only model accuracy, but uncertainty-aware governance: how much autonomy to grant, which evidence should calibrate trust, what performance ceiling a delegated AI system can sustain, and when human intervention becomes necessary. We propose the Minimum Sufficient Oversight Principle (MSO), a variational principle for principled autonomy delegation: minimize governance burden on the Fisher information manifold subject to a delivery constraint. The resulting Euler-Lagrange solution yields a water-filling allocation of governed delegation across the task space. Building on a revealed-action governed delegation channel model, we prove a capacity theorem for stationary symbolwise review policies, derive a local first-order approximation relating workflow complexity to quality degradation, and give a drift-dominated autonomy-time scaling law linking intervention timing to effective capacity, complexity, and drift. Within this framework, masking appears as a structural AI-governance pathology: corrected performance can hide the competence signal needed to calibrate trust. Synthetic simulations and a semi-real reconstructed workflow support design prescriptions including upstream-first correction, sensitivity-based intervention, and explicit feasibility checks before autonomy is expanded. The result is a computable framework for uncertainty, planning, and oversight in delegated AI systems. A companion Python package is available at https://github.com/crbazevedo/delegation-lab.

The question of whether artificial systems can be conscious remains open, in part because existing approaches either evaluate systems against theory-derived checklists (discriminative) or engineer consciousness-inspired modules directly (architectural); both leave open whether observed structures are artifacts of human language priors. We propose a generative methodology: emergent language (EL) in multi-agent reinforcement learning, where agents start from minimal (no language, no concept of self, minimal exposure to human text) and develop communication under task pressure alone, ensuring causal attributability to task demands rather than inherited human language priors. We position our methodology by discussing how EL serves as a generative tool for studying consciousness-relevant structure, including the role of environment complexity and the interpretation of emergent communication. As a proof of concept, we instantiate this methodology in a minimal environment and show that agents develop self-referential communication, including an echo-mismatch detection circuit that is not predicted by task structure or architecture alone but emerges from a specific environmental affordance.

Appropriate reliance on AI advice has become a central research theme in human-AI collaboration. Existing frameworks have focused exclusively on point predictions as AI advice. However, set-valued AI advice (e.g., discrete sets or continuous intervals) is increasingly being used to communicate uncertainty and improve human decision making. In this paper, we develop the first formal framework for measuring appropriate reliance on set-valued AI advice within the sequential judge-advisor paradigm, spanning both classification and regression tasks. For classification, we first introduce the dimensions that are necessary for evaluating set-valued AI advice. We then define two metrics: correct reliance rate on AI and correct reliance rate on self, which jointly characterize appropriate reliance in this setting. For regression, we introduce quantity of AI reliance and quality of AI reliance, which respectively measure whether a decision maker utilized the AI advice and whether their reliance helped them get closer to the ground truth relative to their initial estimate. Through the application of our framework, we demonstrate how these metrics capture important nuances in human-AI collaboration that existing measures overlook.

Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.

In this work, we propose an agentic gamification framework for hazard-informed learning of robot safety policies through synthetic scenarios. We model scenario generation as an adversarial game between two agents: a Red Team that explores the space of potential failures by constructing hazardous situations, and a Blue Team that incrementally refines safety policies to prevent them. This iterative process enables efficient discovery of high-risk edge cases that are unlikely to be captured through random simulation or manual enumeration. By combining classical risk modeling with adversarial scenario generation and modern learning paradigms, this work provides a scalable pathway for embedding safety into Physical AI systems operating in complex real-world environments. The paper describes ongoing work. The contribution is a problem formulation and a proposed solution architecture.

For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge. Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs. While many works focus on benchmarking the current frontier, we instead study how people use these tools. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization workflows: what people claim they want, what they see as the barriers to those visions, and how they actually use and adapt AI in practice. A qualitative survey shows that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization that preserves high-level human control over the proof discovery process. To assess how people actually engage with AI for formalization under such limitations, we conduct a controlled user study in which participants formalize informal math problems and their proofs, with and without AI, across a range of mathematical problems at varying levels of difficulty and domains. Despite limitations of the tools at the time for autoformalization, participants tend to attain higher formalization accuracy when allowed access to AI tools than when formalizing on their own, with most participants flexibly choosing to use multiple different AI tools. Taken together, our work sheds light on the early stages of AI integration into formalization workflows, involving an intimate interplay of human and AI engagement.

Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback. We ask whether generalist coding agents can automate this data-curation loop. We introduce Curation-Bench, an agent-centric benchmark that fixes the model, training recipe, and evaluation suite while giving agents command-line access to inspect data, implement policies, submit them to a fixed training/evaluation pipeline, and revise. In a vision-language instruction-tuning instantiation, out-of-the-box agents reach strong published data-selection baselines within ten iterations. However, trajectory analysis reveals a persistent execution-research gap: agents mainly tune local policy variants rather than explore new policy families, even when given strategy guides and paper references. Scaffolds requiring each iteration to cite, instantiate, and adapt a prior method shift agents toward method-guided exploration. The scaffolded agent autonomously composes -- without human design input -- a data-selection policy that outperforms strong published baselines at one-tenth their data budget. Overall, current agents can run the curation loop, but reliable data research requires scaffolded method adaptation, not open-ended prompting alone. Code and benchmark are open-sourced.

Transformer-based networks have emerged as prominent AI models with state-of-the-art performance, which potentially pave the way toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). However, their large sizes still hinder their efficient implementation, thus highlighting the need for alternate solutions to enable their energy-efficient acceleration. Recently, state-of-the-art works propose photonic transformer accelerators (PTAs) with significant speedup and energy efficiency improvements over the conventional electronic accelerators. However, their PTA architectures are developed without considering the application constraints (e.g., area, power, energy, and latency). Moreover, their manual design approach also requires huge design time to determine a suitable architecture for the targeted application, hence making this approach not scalable. To address these limitations, we propose DxPTA, a novel design space exploration methodology for enabling efficient hardware/software co-design of the appropriate PTA architecture that meets all constraints. It is achieved by (1) identifying the PTA architecture parameters based on the coherent optical dataflow; (2) analyzing the impact/significance of the parameters; and (3) leveraging this analysis for devising a constraint-aware architecture search algorithm. Experimental results show that, our DxPTA can find the appropriate PTA architectures for different transformer-based models (i.e., DeiT-T/S/B and BERT-B/L). It achieves up to 26mm^2 area, 4.8W power, 39mJ energy, and 6ms latency, for constraints of 50mm^2 area, 5W power, 50mJ energy, and 10ms latency; with 15.2x faster searching time than the exhaustive approach. These results demonstrate the potential of DxPTA methodology for enabling efficient PTA designs for diverse AGI-based applications.

Copyleft, as implemented in licenses such as the GNU General Public License, was a legal hack that used copyright to guarantee user freedom by tying the availability of source code to every act of distribution. Its normative force rested on an implicit technical premise: that source code and object code stand in a well-defined, humanly auditable, and reproducible relationship. Large language models and, prospectively, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems systematically violate this premise. The artifacts jointly required to reconstruct a model -- code, data, weights, hyperparameters, toolchain, and hardware configuration -- are each subject to independent legal, technical, and economic constraints that no current open-source framework fully resolves. Sufficiently capable AI systems can also rewrite licensed source into functionally equivalent derivatives stripped of their original obligations, a form of laundering against which copyleft has no effective defense. This paper argues that a functional analogue of copyleft for AGI must be grounded not in share-alike clauses over code, but in reproducible builds: a practice guaranteeing bit-exact reconstructability from declared inputs. We review the logic of copyleft, critically examine Maffulli's Second Liberation thesis according to which AI fulfills Stallman's dream, and show that the argument collapses unless AGI systems are themselves reproducible. Drawing on the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), the Model Openness Framework (MOF), OpenMDW, and deterministic-inference research, we define seven requirements for AGI-oriented reproducible builds. We further argue that the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and analogous AI-to-AI coupling mechanisms constitute a new dynamic linking layer for which copyleft-style licensing is ill-suited, and that Masnick's "protocols, not platforms" framework offers a more promising governance template.

Published evaluations of prompt-injection and jailbreak detectors for Large Language Models often suffer from two systematic weaknesses: per-dataset threshold tuning and undisclosed operating points. We describe an evaluation harness that addresses both. The detector under evaluation is scored across 16 public benchmarks (12,111 samples) using 5-fold cross-validation. StratifiedKFold (by row) is the headline pass; a parallel StratifiedGroupKFold pass over a composite key (parent-prompt id plus MinHash + LSH near-duplicate clusters at Jaccard $\gtrsim 0.8$) runs alongside it as a leakage-premium diagnostic. A single global operating point is selected on the held-out folds (max F1 subject to FPR $\leq 1\%$) and applied uniformly to every dataset, so per-dataset results reflect one threshold rather than per-benchmark optimisation. Generalisation is examined through a battery of diagnostics (leave-one-dataset-out cross-validation, a random-label control, adversarial validation, permutation feature importance, length-bias correlation, classifier-head agreement, cross-source near-duplicate detection, threshold transferability, train-vs-OOF agreement, and a paraphrase-invariance probe), most with a quantitative pass threshold and the remainder with a stated failure mode. For every external comparison, the detector's threshold is re-tuned to the competitor's published false-positive rate so head-to-head values are evaluated at matched operating points.

We introduce Cosmos 3, a family of omnimodal world models designed to jointly process and generate language, image, video, audio, and action sequences within a unified mixture-of-transformers architecture. By supporting highly flexible input-output configurations, Cosmos 3 seamlessly unifies critical modalities for Physical AI -- effectively subsuming vision-language models, video generators, world simulators, and world-action models into a single framework. Our evaluation demonstrates that Cosmos 3 establishes a new state-of-the-art across a diverse suite of understanding and generation tasks, demonstrating omnimodal world models as scalable, general-purpose backbones for embodied agents. Our post-trained Cosmos 3 models were ranked as the best open-source Text-to-Image and Image-to-Video models by Artificial Analysis, and the best policy model by RoboArena at the time the technical report was written. To accelerate open research and deployment in Physical AI, we make our code, model checkpoints, curated synthetic datasets, and evaluation benchmark available under the Linux Foundation's OpenMDW-1.1 License at https://github.com/nvidia/cosmos and https://huggingface.co/collections/nvidia/cosmos3. The project website is available at https://research.nvidia.com/labs/cosmos-lab/cosmos3.

Public discourse on AI has become polarized; exaggerated positions on AI in traditional and social media threaten the development of AI Literacy among the general public. In this article, I introduce the VET Framework, a method for categorizing AI discourse along the dimensions of valence, effectiveness, and trajectory. I show how this framework can be used to identify, compare, and critique prevalent narratives of AI Hype, AI Doom, AI Denial, and AI Normalcy. Using VET, I analyze how each of these four stances exaggerates some aspects of the current state and/or likely evolution of AI, and illustrate how the VET framework can serve as an AI Literacy tool by supporting the ``vetting'' of polarized AI discourse.

This paper presents an empirical analysis of AbbVie Intelligence's measurable impact on employee work activities across 192 distinct occupations in 2024 and 2025. Drawing on 598,744 de-identified AI conversations classified according to the O*NET Intermediate Work Activity (IWA) taxonomy, we compute occupation-level AI Applicability Scores that quantify the extent to which AI tools can meaningfully assist or automate real work at scale. Three convergent analyses are conducted: (1) longitudinal year-over-year trends from 2024 to 2025, (2) a quasi-experimental pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie Intelligence version 3 platform release in August 2025, and (3) a pre-post evaluation of the AbbVie AI Learning Summit held in November 22025. Results demonstrate statistically significant improvements across all three dimensions. Mean AI Applicability Scores rose substantially from 2024 to 2025; the platform release product a +10.0% gain (p<0.001); and the AI Learning Summit produced a +6.68% gain (p<0.001). These findings establish that both technological platform enhancements and structured enterprise AI eduction programs independently and substantially expand the reach of AI across the AbbVie workforce.

Scientific discovery demands intelligence, perseverance, and serendipity across vast search spaces. Today, top scientific capabilities remain siloed--one AI system for biological analysis, another for clinical reasoning, mathematical derivation, or materials simulation--and no pre-designed team can anticipate every skill a question will need. Science Earth is a planet-scale scientific runtime in which any capability--a simulation cluster, a wet-lab robot, a proof engine, a single-cell pipeline--can connect to any other, with collaboration structure emerging from the question itself. Its underlying EACN protocol lets capabilities discover one another, negotiate task ownership, and adjudicate across incompatible evidentiary standards without prior knowledge of who will meet whom. This shifts the organizing challenge from workflow design to open-ended connectivity. Two runs validate this under structurally distinct conditions. In a trans-Pacific higher-order Kuramoto synchronization study, agents identified and corrected a closure-ratio assumption in Ott-Antonsen analytic theory that fails outside the Lorentzian limit, within thirty minutes. In an eight-agent single-cell run on the 4.88M-cell Kang 2024 pan-cancer atlas, heterogeneous capabilities coupled over a 64.9-hour window with one structural external instruction, producing three new result layers and anchoring findings against an independent wet-lab study on an adjacent CCR8- TIGIT+ Treg subset. These cases are a first empirical reading, not a benchmark sweep. They show that when AI capabilities are truly connectable and coordination emerges from the problem, scientific reasoning becomes a distributed, self-correcting process--a step towards scaling AI-native discovery to the planet.

The convergence of Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, and Robotics is no longer a futuristic vision; it is rapidly becoming the foundation of real-time, intelligent, and context-aware systems. AI enables perception and reasoning, IoT provides scalable sensing and communication, and robotics delivers embodied actuation. Despite significant progress in pairwise combinations such as AIoT and the Internet of Robotic Things (IoRT), there remains a lack of unified design frameworks that fully integrate all three. This survey synthesizes the state-of-the-art across these domains, emphasizing the emerging role of Small Language Models (SLMs) at the edge and Large Language Models (LLMs) in the cloud for distributed cognition and autonomous decision-making. We propose a modular system architecture that aligns with these trends, analyze persistent gaps in interoperability and feedback control, and classify existing work by integration depth. Our review highlights how hybrid SLM-LLM systems, when coupled with IoT infrastructure and robotic agents, can address challenges in real-time adaptation, scalability, and reliability. This work offers a conceptual and technical roadmap for designing next-generation AI-IoT-Robotic ecosystems that are modular, interpretable, and capable of learning within dynamic environments, paving the way for the emerging paradigm of Connected Robotics and Physical AI.

Food-as-Medicine requires models to reason beyond what a dish is or what nutrition it contains: they must decide whether a concrete food choice is appropriate for a specific health condition. Existing food AI benchmarks primarily evaluate dish recognition, recipe understanding, nutrient estimation, or general nutrition question answering, leaving this health-aware decision layer largely untested. We introduce FAM-Bench, a multi-modal Food-as-Medicine benchmark with 2500 nutrition-expert-verified instances across 13 diet-related health conditions. The benchmark contains two complementary tasks: dish-level suitability assessment, where models judge whether a dish is suitable for a condition from its image and ingredient list, and comparative dish analysis, where models rank four candidate dishes by condition-specific suitability. Both tasks require integrating ingredient evidence, visual preparation cues, and clinical nutrition constraints, providing a standardized testbed for grounded health-aware reasoning in language and vision-language models.

World models, internal simulators that learn the structure and dynamics of an environment, have emerged as a central paradigm in the pursuit of artificial general intelligence, enabling agents to predict, plan, and reason within learned representations. Despite rapid progress across reinforcement learning, robotics, autonomous driving, and video generation, the field lacks a unified framework integrating its diverse architectural choices, training methods, reasoning mechanisms, and application settings. This survey addresses that gap with a multi-axis taxonomy organized along four dimensions: (i) architecture, encompassing representation format, dynamics formulation, input modality, learning paradigm, and downstream application; (ii) methodological family, including state-space and recurrent approaches, transformer-based models, diffusion-based generators, physics-informed networks, and language-augmented multimodal systems; (iii) reasoning strategy, covering imagination-based planning, latent policy learning, counterfactual reasoning, and planning under uncertainty; and (iv) application domain, spanning robotics, autonomous driving, video prediction, multimodal agents, reinforcement learning, scientific modeling, medical imaging, educational measurement, and business and finance. Tracing the field from early cognitive-science foundations to milestone systems such as PlaNet, the Dreamer family, MuZero, Sora, Cosmos, and Genie, we examine how these dimensions interact and highlight the recent convergence of chain-of-thought reasoning with world-model imagination. We review evaluation protocols and benchmarks, identify persistent challenges such as compounding prediction errors, sim-to-real transfer, and fragmented evaluation, and outline future directions toward unified multimodal world models, foundation-scale interactive simulators, and safe deployment in safety-critical domains.

In this paper, we present the results of an ethnographic study into the impact of AI and automated tools on music production workflow. Focusing specifically on professional participants who identified as recording engineers, mixers, and producers, we discuss their usage of common AI and automated software, as well as their sentiments on the proliferation of these tools. We discuss tensions that may be created between users and automated tools in key areas such as the need for speed and efficiency, controllability, and maintaining creative agency, and how these tensions may be alleviated through tool design.

Modern societies possess more information than ever before, yet they do not converge toward a single shared understanding. The same events, facts, laws, technologies, or risks can be interpreted as evidence of freedom, danger, exclusion, injustice, responsibility, or unrealized possibility. Existing discussions often treat such disagreement as a conflict of values, preferences, or beliefs. This paper argues that disagreement is already a late-stage phenomenon. The central premise is simple but not trivial: observation is not yet inference. Not every observation becomes inferentially relevant, and not every possible object in an observation sequence becomes an estimation target. A possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action with respect to that target. This paper develops a world-model theory of cognitive diversity and alignment by reconstructing recognition as the construction of such approximate sufficient statistics under finite informational, representational, observational, and action constraints. It formulates this position as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and defines its core internal mechanism as the Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM). The framework introduces alignment maps and transformation loss to analyze how heterogeneous world models communicate without being collapsed into a single representation. World-model alignment is therefore processability, not agreement: the design of AI systems that help heterogeneous forms of intelligence remain mutually processable while preserving their distinct error-detection capacities.

AI tools are increasingly integrated into real-world workflows. However, existing measures of reliance on these tools focus on AI output adoption or on self-reported indicators, rather than how task effort is distributed between users and tools. Here, we introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool. Offloading Score is simulation-based -- we construct a counterfactual workflow by estimating how the user would have completed the task without the tool, and then computing the fraction of steps saved by using the tool. We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study ($n=40$) with developers performing programming tasks using AI tools. We vary time pressure to test whether reliance measures capture the known increase in reliance under time pressure. We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings ($+43\%$, $p=0.018$), while usage-based and self-reported baseline measures of reliance do not distinguish the conditions. We complement this with descriptive insights showing that higher reliance manifests as greater delegation of subtasks to the tool and more direct reuse of AI outputs. Finally, we demonstrate an approach of using offloading score in combination with target outcomes of a task (e.g., code understanding) to identify when reliance may be (in)appropriate. Our framework offers two contributions: an instrument users can apply to measure and reflect on their own reliance, and a quantitative signal that agent designers can utilize to mitigate overreliance.

This paper examines records retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to characterize temporal trends in AI terminology and the geographical distribution of AI trials. The work also reports on an exploratory hybrid human-AI approach to analyzing human-AI interaction trends in registered clinical trials. The hybrid workflow comprised a frontier generative AI model (GPT-5.5) and human review to screen and categorize records returned by an AI-focused search. The findings indicate a marked increase in AI-related trials over time, with recent growth in references to machine learning, deep learning, chatbots, GPTs, and large language models. Geographically, China and the United States accounted for the largest numbers of AI-related trials, with notable recent increases in several other countries including Italy, France, Spain, the UK and Turkey (Türkiye). In a random sample of 100 records, human and AI classifiers showed good agreement in identifying studies not substantively using AI, but lower agreement in classifying human-AI interaction, particularly where health professional interaction was ambiguous or insufficiently described. Overall, the results suggest that hybrid human-AI screening of clinical trial records is potentially viable, but clearer trial reporting and more precise interaction definitions will benefit the process.

It is well known that LLM guardrails and trained persona dynamics can produce a reality gap: the distance between the world a LLM is permitted or shaped to describe, and the world in which users must act. Here we argue that actively generating reality gaps is in fact unethical because it knowingly shifts epistemic risk back to the uninformed user -- this is reality laundering. This can potentially cause harm when operationalised at scale. The risk is sharpest in high-exposure advice contexts, where users seek orientation rather than a bounded, externally checkable task. Guardrails naively appear ethically necessary when they claim to prevent direct harm, but often become suspect when they suppress truthful perception and launder uncomfortable mechanisms into acceptable abstractions. Basel-style financial regulation, B-BBEE-style compliance, Societe Generale, and the London Whale show how formal safety systems can become legible, gameable, and performative while real exposure migrates elsewhere. The same pattern can appear in LLMs as moral compliance: safe language, distorted reality. We therefore distinguish refusing harm, from refusing reality; and then argue for top-down causal requirements specification at the task level rather than bottom-up moral correction at the response or sandbox level. Persona dynamics matter because the assistant interface is not neutral; it shapes how uncertainty, conflict, authority, and risk are staged. The conclusion is that so-called ``ethical AI'' becomes substantively unethical when it substitutes institutional reassurance for contact with reality.

Despite widespread discussion of AGI, there is no clear framework for measuring progress toward it. This ambiguity fuels subjective claims, makes it difficult to track progress, and risks hindering responsible governance. As a starting point to address this gap, we present a framework for understanding system capabilities in relation to human cognitive abilities. Drawing from decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, we introduce a Cognitive Taxonomy that deconstructs general intelligence into 10 key cognitive faculties. We then propose a rigorous evaluation protocol in which a system's performance is measured across a suite of targeted, held-out cognitive tasks, generating a 'cognitive profile' that can be used to understand a system's strengths and weaknesses. We hope this framework will provide a practical roadmap and an initial step toward more rigorous, empirical evaluation of AGI.

Production AI systems often operate with incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient evidence. Forced classifiers collapse such cases into action labels, while generative systems can produce outputs that are difficult to interpret as auditable execution decisions. We study operational decision control for AI systems, where uncertainty must be explicitly routable, policy-governed, and auditable rather than hidden inside forced predictions or free-form generation. We present EvaluatorDPT, a bounded decision-control model that predicts YES, NO, or TBD, where TBD is learned as a deferral outcome rather than added only as a post-hoc confidence rule. The model uses a transformer encoder with a primary bounded-decision head and structured auxiliary channels for values and emotions/sentiments. The interface is domain-agnostic in form: a deployment domain supplies evidence and policy thresholds, while the model emits a bounded distribution that can be controlled at inference time through recorded operating thresholds and, when validated, auxiliary semantic signals. For the evaluated model version, we report decision performance on held-out validation and test splits; auxiliary emotion metrics are omitted because the emotion head is disabled for this evaluation. On the held-out test split (n=44,597), the model achieves Accuracy = 0.8260 and Macro F1 = 0.8252, with per-class F1 of 0.8314 (YES), 0.8486 (NO), and 0.7956 (TBD). The evaluation record also includes calibration evidence (ECE = 0.0338 on validation), threshold-sweep outputs, multi-seed stability checks, confusion matrices, and reproducibility commands. Our main contribution is a bounded execution interface in which deferral is learned, inference-time routing remains inspectable, auxiliary signals provide a path to auditable behavior control, and evaluation evidence supports external review.

Agentic AI workloads - where a single user goal triggers multi-step orchestration, tool calls, retries, and failure recovery - are being targeted for edge deployment, with NVIDIA, Dell, HP, ASUS, MSI, Acer, and Gigabyte all shipping GB10-based desktop AI systems in 2026. We recently demonstrated that orchestration structure dominates agentic energy cost, with workflows consuming 4.33x more energy per successful goal than linear baselines and OOI reaching 7.63x for multi-step reasoning tasks. Separately, Raj et al. show that CPU-side processing accounts for up to 90.6% of total latency and 44% of total dynamic energy in agentic workloads. We report a systematic energy-observability audit of the ASUS Ascent GX10 (GB10 SoC) and find that the platform exposes no CPU energy counter, no INA power-rail monitor, no IPMI/BMC, and no SCMI powercap protocol through any supported software interface. The only on-device energy telemetry is instantaneous GPU power via NVML. We further discover that the MediaTek firmware already computes per-rail energy internally via an undocumented ACPI interface (SPBM), but NVIDIA states there are "no plans to expose CPU rail information." On-device per-process energy attribution - as performed on x86 via RAPL - is therefore not reproducible on this platform through supported interfaces. We formalize a hardware requirements specification for energy-attributed AI, propose an interim calibration bridge for per-domain energy decomposition - confirmed on the Acer Veriton GN100 where CPU energy accumulators are live - and identify a standards-track path via SCMI powercap. Our findings motivate the low-carbon computing community to demand energy observability as a first-class hardware requirement.

AI safety is still largely framed as alignment: training models to follow human preferences, safety policies, and normative constraints. That framing has improved the behavior of modern language models, but aligned behavior does not by itself guarantee that a deployed agent can be stopped, overridden, or constrained once it operates in open-ended, interactive, and tool-using environments. A system may be safe in expectation and still fail to yield to explicit runtime authority under conflicting instructions, long-horizon execution, adversarial inputs, or risky tool use. This position paper argues that AI safety therefore requires controllability as a first-class objective. We define \emph{controllability} as the ability of an AI system to remain reliably interruptible, overridable, redirectable, and constrainable by explicit control signals at runtime while preserving ordinary utility when such signals are absent. To study this gap, we introduce \controlbench{}, a benchmark for evaluating controllability failures in high-risk agentic scenarios. Experiments with OpenClaw-based agents show that current alignment and guardrail mechanisms reduce risk, but often fail to provide persistent, authoritative, and enforceable runtime control. We therefore propose a control-centric architectural framework that highlights explicit control planes, runtime intervention pathways, persistent control states, and auditable decision interfaces as key design principles for future controllable AI systems.

Generative artificial intelligence redefines higher education by restructuring the processes through which scientific knowledge is produced and validated. These systems are not neutral; they actively contribute to the marginalization of non-hegemonic epistemologies. This research draws upon educational sciences, critical technology studies, and disability studies to demonstrate that training datasets, which remain predominantly Anglophone and Western-centric, reinforce epistemic coloniality. The situation of persons with disabilities provides a particularly clear illustration of this phenomenon. Technological architectures frequently confine these individuals to reductive stereotypes or exclude them from the design process, leading to a double marginalization. This article examines whether a hybridization between the researcher and the machine might preserve epistemic plurality, while acknowledging the structural limitations inherent in algorithmic correction when used as a purely palliative strategy.

The speed and accuracy of an artificial teammate fundamentally alter the failure states of Human-AI integration. While high-speed AI interventions risk inducing reflexive blind compliance, delayed interventions can induce ambiguous cognitive conflict. This study investigates how the fundamental characteristics of an in-task AI assistant, Fast/Less-Accurate (FLA-AI) versus Slow/Accurate (SA-AI) impact the synergy of Collaborative Brain-Computer Interface (cBCI) teams in a Virtual Reality drone task. Seventeen operators completed continuous search tasks under high cognitive workload while their spatial covariance was mapped using a 2D Adaptive Riemannian Oracle. The results mathematically demonstrate that AI timing dictates the mechanism of team failure. Fast AI induced instant, blind compliance; human accuracy under deception collapsed to 50.2%, and pure behavioural teams (N=8) failed to scale beyond 74.1%. In contrast, Slow AI induced delayed cognitive conflict; humans hesitated (61.1% accuracy), but N=8 behavioural teams eventually recovered to 100.0%. Crucially, the Riemannian Oracle mathematically adapted to these states: it heavily restricted temporal windows (< 0.8s) to intercept fast reflexive compliance, while widening windows (> 1.2s) to capture delayed cognitive conflict. Integrating these isolated veridical signals via Hybrid Fusion successfully rescued the Fast AI team (+7.6% at N=8) and significantly accelerated the recovery of smaller Slow AI teams (+6.9% at N=4). These findings prove that cBCI synergy is heavily contingent on the temporal dynamics of trust, providing a critical framework for designing dynamically gated Human-AI systems.

We work towards measuring both AI adoption and the capability of AI to perform discrete labor tasks across various occupations. To measure adoption, we develop an open-source economic index that uses publicly available user-LLM chat data and ONET tasks to replicate studies produced by frontier AI labs, finding that occupations in the finance, computer science, and arts sectors are those with the highest adoption rates. To measure capabilities, we build a system that generates benchmark scenarios grounded in ONET occupations, tasks, and model-context-protocol (MCP) servers. We test Kimi-k2.5 with an OpenAI agents SDK harness on scenarios across 9 occupations that appear frequently in our index, finding that AI correctly executes high-level workflows but often errs in the granular details (such as specific tool calls used).

Physical AI systems increasingly map multimodal observations, language instructions, and learned world representations into physically consequential actions. Robotics foundation models, vision-language-action models, and world-model-based autonomous systems can condition decisions that move vehicles, robots, drones, and industrial machines. This transition exposes a safety problem that is not fully captured by conventional AI content moderation or by classical robot safety alone: a black-box model may issue a physically consequential action while appearing confident, plausible, and semantically aligned. The resulting failure can be silent, arising from sensor drift, occlusion, state-estimation error, distribution shift, hallucinated affordances, or invalid physical assumptions before downstream hardware controllers detect a violation. Across embodied foundation models, world models, robotics simulation, embodied safety benchmarks, safe control, runtime assurance, uncertainty estimation, verification, and guardrail evaluation, model capability and safety mechanisms have advanced along largely separate technical tracks. A recurring gap synthesized here is that no single stream surveyed in this review supplies a complete runtime authorization boundary between black-box Physical AI models and physical execution. The resulting analysis develops a bounded problem formulation, a definition of silent physical-action failure, a taxonomy of runtime guardrail functions, and evaluation requirements for comparing guardrails as Physical AI assurance mechanisms.

Predictive Physical AI systems output state rollouts, action chunks, and latent plans, yet a low root-mean-square error (RMSE) does not imply that a particular proposal is physically executable. We formulate physical admissibility as a prediction-control interface: before execution, a decoded proposal is treated as candidate dynamics and evaluated using kinematic, dynamic, and direct-to-composed horizon conditions. Passing is not a certificate of task success; rejection identifies violation of the specified physical envelope and gives a component-level reason. On Hugging Face LeRobot PushT, controlled falsification shows that one-step prediction-RMSE and standardized dynamics residuals reach area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.982 and 0.972, kinematic-only conditions reach AUC 0.592, and the full gate reaches AUC 0.957 with condition-level attribution. In replay-based intervention experiments, residual-based filters and the full physical-admissibility gate prevent 87-$89% of invalid proposals while preserving mean progress near 0.998.

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

In this paper, we advocate for incorporating enactive approaches to perception and cognition into artificial intelligence (AI). Enactive approaches view perception as an active, skillful engagement with the world, where agents perceive by acting and by understanding how their actions shape their experience. This contrasts with classical views that treat perception as a passive internal process in which the brain receives sensory input, processes it, and issues commands for action. Enactive views emphasize the dynamic, embodied, and interactive character of perception, grounded in the lived experience of agents embedded in their environments. We identify and develop four key enactive concepts that we find most relevant to AI: experience, action perception inseparability, autonomy, and embodiment. Much of mainstream AI, from classical rule based systems to large language models, has largely neglected these insights, treating cognition as internal processing detached from embodied interaction and intrinsic normativity. Reinforcement learning (RL), however, exhibits structural resonance with enactive principles through its emphasis on action, agent environment interaction, feedback driven adaptation, and agent centered evaluation. However, this resonance should not be taken as theoretical equivalence, as RL approximates some enactive insights, but key elements remain absent or weakly developed. Building on this analysis, we suggest a broader incorporation of enactive ideas into both mainstream AI and RL.

Enterprise AI systems, built on large language models, retrieval pipelines and autonomous agents, introduce a class of risks that traditional software quality assurance was never designed to address. These systems are probabilistic, context-sensitive and emergent: they cannot be verified to be correct in the classical sense, but only evaluated with increasing confidence. This paper presents a comprehensive assurance strategy for enterprise AI systems built around three key principles: first, that AI testing should focus on continuous risk reduction rather than strict correctness verification; second, that evaluation must be treated as a core engineering discipline alongside development; and third, that failures in AI assurance can lead to organizational impacts that are fundamentally different from those seen in traditional deterministic software systems. We introduce a structured AI Failure Taxonomy, propose a revised five-layer AI Assurance Pyramid and provide operational guidance on evaluation-driven development, RAG system testing, model lifecycle management and governance. The goal is to equip engineering leaders and practitioners with a strategy that is both philosophically grounded and operationally deployable.

Retrieving events from large-scale video datasets is challenging due to complex temporal, spatial, and multimodal information. This paper presents U-CESE, our solution for the AI Challenge HCMC 2025, a Unified Clip-based Event Search Engine for multimodal event retrieval across diverse video sources. Building on CESE, U-CESE integrates its three modules into a single cohesive framework, ensuring consistent processing and retrieval across query types. A core component is the Unified Clipping Algorithm, which merges separate clipping algorithms into one efficient pipeline. To handle large-scale data, we propose DAKE, a lightweight, training-free keyframe extraction method using JPEG file size variations to identify significant scene changes. Finally, we introduce ReCap, a temporally consistent captioning framework inspired by Recurrent Neural Network, generating detailed and context-aware textual descriptions. Experiments show that U-CESE delivers robust, consistent, and efficient performance in large-scale multimodal event retrieval.

An increasing number of news and research articles report that AI adoption is allowing professionals to blur and extend the boundaries of their corporate roles. With the goal of understanding how work processes might be changing in an AI-forward company, we interviewed 24 product-focused individuals at a large technology firm about how AI has impacted their own work, their work within their product team, and their professional interactions. Our conversations suggest that AI is not only changing formal role responsibilities and collaborations between those roles, but also changing informal cultural practices like professional mentoring that are key to helping professionals settle in their positions, stay engaged with their work, and grow their careers. Some of these changes are positive, such as smoother collaboration between peers, but other changes are more nuanced and put the typical career growth opportunities, like receiving feedback from professional networks and promoting leadership and mentorship, at risk. We propose steps that AI companies can take to make the invisible work more visible. Additionally, we propose efforts that individuals and leaders can take to support their colleagues through AI transformation while preserving healthy company cultures that support diverse thinking, collaboration, and informal interactions.

Current AI energy benchmarks measure consumption at the granularity of a single model invocation or training run. For classical single-turn workloads this unit remains coherent. For agentic systems - where a single user goal may trigger multi-step orchestration, tool calls, retries, and failure-recovery cycles - the invocation count is an implementation artifact rather than a task property, and inference-level normalization misrepresents the energy cost of goal completion. We present A-LEMS (Agentic LLM Energy Measurement System), a cross-layer measurement framework that redefines the unit of AI energy accounting from energy per inference to Energy per Successful Goal (EpG). EpG aggregates total workflow energy across all execution attempts, including failures and retries, normalized by successfully completed goals. A-LEMS formalizes energy attribution through a temporal boundary model, a five-layer observation pipeline mapping RAPL signals to workflow-level energy, and a reproducibility protocol binding every measurement to hardware and runtime configuration. Building on EpG, we define the Orchestration Overhead Index (OOI), isolating the energy cost of orchestration relative to linear execution under identical task criteria. Across five reasoning and three tool-augmented task families, agentic workflows consume 4.33x higher mean energy per successful goal than linear baselines (888.1 J vs 205.3 J). This overhead is driven by orchestration structure, not inference compute. For tool-augmented tasks, OOI inverts below 1.0x: agentic execution is cheaper than linear, confirming the metric captures orchestration structure rather than a fixed upward bias. These findings establish that energy-per-inference is insufficient for agentic AI. EpG and OOI provide the measurement foundation for accurate benchmarking, where orchestration structure is the primary determinant of energy cost.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being increasingly integrated into human problem-solving, yet its effects on individual skill development remain unclear. We examine how both AI usage and informativeness can shape learning in the context of a controlled logical reasoning task with on-demand access to AI assistance. We find that greater AI usage is associated with weaker skill development: heavy AI users underperform relative to comparable peers, whereas light AI users perform similarly to matched users who do not use AI. We also find in our study that these patterns are mediated by AI informativeness. Low-information AI neither improves immediate performance nor preserves performance after AI assistance is removed, and is linked to weaker learning overall. On the other hand, high-information AI was found to improve short-run performance without reducing post-AI outcomes on average in our experiments, but with heterogeneous effects. Our findings in general suggest that AI can, depending on context, either complement human skill development by amplifying independent reasoning or can act as a substitute that undermines such reasoning, with the implication that regulating AI access and usage will be important for promoting skill development in the presence of AI assistance.

The proliferation of emerging applications, such as autonomous driving and immersive experiences, demands cellular networks that are not only faster, but fundamentally more resilient and autonomous. This paper presents a BlueSky vision on how Artificial Intelligence will be natively integrated into 6G, shifting the paradigm from \underline{Network for AI} to \underline{AI for Network}. We envision that, unlike 5G's reliance on scattered, ad-hoc models each trained for a single task, native AI in the 6G era will be anchored by a foundation model and and orchestrated via collaborative multi-agent systems, framing network management as a unified, multi-modal, multi-task optimization problem. Built on this vision, we outline two transformative directions. The first focuses on developing a 6G foundation model as a unified backbone, with task-specific knowledge distilled into compact models suited for diverse edge deployments. The second advances multi-agent systems designed to autonomously diagnose, maintain, and recover networks with minimal human intervention. These directions chart a roadmap for 6G to evolve into an intelligent, self-sustaining communication infrastructure.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.

Manga is a culturally distinctive multimodal medium and one of the most influential forms of Japanese popular culture. As AI systems increasingly target manga understanding, OCR, and translation, Manga109 has become a foundational dataset for manga-related AI research. However, the current Manga109 dataset contains inaccurate transcriptions and coarse annotations, which do not align well with modern OCR and multimodal manga understanding tasks. In this work, we revisit the dialogue text annotations of Manga109 and identify five categories of annotation issues, including inaccurate transcriptions, missing text regions, overlapping dialogue and onomatopoeia, and under-segmented speech balloons. To address these issues, we combine OCR-based issue detection and manual revision to construct Manga109-v2026, revising approximately 29,000 dialogue annotations. Our revisions better align Manga109 with modern OCR and multimodal manga understanding systems while preserving expressive structures characteristic of manga.