Responsible AI

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

6 papers in the last four weeks, down 14% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 82

May 5, 2026cs.CY

Brainrot: Deskilling and Addiction are Overlooked AI Risks

The scope of AI safety and alignment work in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has so far mostly been limited to harms related to: (a) discrimination and hate speech, (b) harmful/inappropriate (violent, sexual, illegal) content, (c) information hazards, and (d) use cases related to malicious actors, such as cybersecurity, child abuse, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The public conversation around AI, on the other hand, has also been focusing on threats to our cognition, mental health, and welfare at large, related to over-relying on new technologies, most recently, those related to GenAI. Examples include deskilling associated with cognitive offloading and the atrophy of critical thinking as a result of over-reliance on GenAI systems, and addiction associated with attachment and dependence on GenAI systems. Such risks are rarely addressed, if at all, in the AI safety and alignment literature. In this paper, we highlight and quantify this discrepancy and discuss some initial thoughts on how safety and alignment work could address cognitive and mental health concerns. Finally, we discuss how information campaigns and regulation can be used to mitigate such prominent risks.

Ilias Chalkidis, Anders Søgaard

University of Copenhagen, Denmark

AI Safety Responsible AI Cognitive Offloading

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution

As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge. However, the core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously, especially while preserving utility. This position paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI. We ground our arguments in re-interpreting trustworthy AI trade-offs as incompatible invariance requirements under different changes to the data-generating process. We then illustrate this argument through case-study analyses from the literature and a stylized synthetic-data simulation, showing that causality provides a unifying framework for understanding how trade-offs in trustworthy AI arise and how they can be softened or resolved through selective invariance. This perspective applies to both classical ML models and large-scale FMs. Finally, we outline open challenges and opportunities for using causality to build both trustworthy and high-performing AI.

Ruta Binkyte, Ivaxi Sheth, Zhijing Jin +3

CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen · EuroSafeAI +3

May 3, 2026cs.HC

Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences

Drawing on crip theory, this paper proposes cripping AI as a guiding framework to center lived disability experiences in AI research and development. Moving beyond calls to make AI "accessible" to people with disabilities, cripping AI seeks to: (1) reveal and dismantle ableist assumptions embedded in how AI is imagined, designed, and evaluated; (2) center disabled ways of knowing (i.e., cripistemologies); (3) respect disabled labor in co-creating accessible practices. We demonstrate how to apply our framework with three cases: deafness and sign language AI, blindness and visual assistive AI, and stuttering and speech AI. We end by outlining three directions for future work, including cripping AI with diverse human bodyminds, across the entire AI pipeline and ecosystem, and in collaboration with other justice-oriented AI efforts.

Xinru Tang, Ting-an Lin, Jingjin Li +1

University of California, Irvine, USA · AImpower.org, Mountain View, California, USA · University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA

Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Responsible AI

May 3, 2026cs.CY

The Environmental Cost of LLMs in AIED: Reporting and Practices

Large Language Model (LLM) usage in recent years has become increasingly widespread in the Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) community. While LLMs offer unique avenues for learners and educators, using LLMs comes with computational and environmental costs. These costs are mostly hidden due to a lack of standardised procedures to measure and report these impacts. To address this gap, we first conducted a literature review of all papers published as part of the AIED 2025 conference proceedings, determining if and how computational or environmental costs of LLMs are reported. Most projects use LLMs, but few report computational resources used and almost none discuss environmental impacts of LLMs as an ethical concern. To address this lack of standardised reporting practices, we propose an open-source method for systematically measuring and reporting the computational expense of LLMs and environmental impact of running Machine Learning (ML) AIED systems. We provide software solutions to measure the carbon footprint for both local and cloud based hardware. We also provide an easy-to-use formula to calculate the computational expense of frontier LLMs even when the exact number of parameters is not known. Overall, we hope to motivate colleagues to use our method to strive for more transparent reporting of hidden costs of using LLMs in the AIED community.

Sabrina C. Eimler, Lukas Erle, Daniel Flood +5

Institute of Computer Science and Institute of Positive Computing, Ruhr West University of Applied Sciences, Lützowstraße 5, 46236 Bottrop, Germany · Centre for Computational Science and Mathematical Modelling, Coventry2026 University, Coventry, United Kindgom, CV1 5FB · Carnegie Mellon University +1

Generative AI in Education Responsible AI

May 1, 2026cs.CY

Unbox Responsible GeoAI: Navigating Climate Extreme and Disaster Mapping

As climate extreme and disaster events become more frequent and intense, Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) has emerged as a transformative approach for large-scale disaster mapping and risk reduction. However, the purely mechanical, performance-driven deployment of GeoAI models can result in amplifying inherent spatial inequalities, preventing effective emergency decision-making, and producing severe environmental carbon footprint. To unbox the concept of responsible GeoAI, this position paper examines its emerging role, e.g., in climate extreme and disaster mapping, from a critical GIS perspective. We address the nexus of responsible GeoAI into four interrelated theoretical dimensions, specifically Representativeness, Explainability, Sustainability, and Ethics, with examples from climate extreme and disaster mapping. Moreover, targeting at the operational practice, we then propose a conceptual governance Model of responsible GeoAI that categorizes its governance practices into Data, Application, and Society scopes. Last, this position paper aims to raise the attention in the broader GIS community that the future of climate resilience relies not just on building better algorithms, but on fostering a governance ecosystem where GeoAI is deployed responsibly, ethically, and sustainably.

Hao Li, Steffen Knoblauch

Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore · GIScience Research Group, Heidelberg University, Germany · HeiGIT at Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany +1

AI Governance Responsible AI

Apr 30, 2026cs.CY

To Build or Not to Build? Factors that Lead to Non-Development or Abandonment of AI Systems

Responsible AI research typically focuses on examining the use and impacts of deployed AI systems. Yet, there is currently limited visibility into the pre-deployment decisions to pursue building such systems in the first place. Decisions taken in the earlier stages of development shape which systems are ultimately released, and therefore represent potential, but underexplored, points for intervention. As such, this paper investigates factors influencing AI non-development and abandonment throughout the development lifecycle. Specifically, we first perform a scoping review of academic literature, civil society resources, and grey literature including journalism and industry reports. Through thematic analysis of these sources, we develop a taxonomy of six categories of factors contributing to AI abandonment: ethical concerns, stakeholder feedback, development lifecycle challenges, organizational dynamics, resource constraints, and legal/regulatory concerns. Then, we collect data on real-world case of AI system abandonment via an AI incident database and a practitioner survey to evidence and compare factors that drive abandonment both prior to and following system deployment. While academic responsible AI communities often emphasize ethical risks as reasons to not develop AI, our empirical analysis of these cases demonstrates the diverse, and often non-ethics-related, levers that motivate organizations to abandon AI development. Synthesizing evidence from our taxonomy and related case study analyses, we identify gaps and opportunities in current responsible AI research to (1) engage with the diverse range of levers that influence organizations to abandon AI development, and (2) better support appropriate (dis)engagement with AI system development.

Shreya Chappidi, Jatinder Singh

University of Cambridge, United Kingdom · National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, United States · Research Centre Trust, UA Ruhr, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany

AI Risk Management AI Governance Responsible AI

Apr 29, 2026cs.CY

Addressing the Reality Gap: A Three-Tension Framework for Agentic AI Adoption

Generative AI has rapidly entered education through free consumer tools, outpacing the ability of schools and universities to respond. Now a new wave of more autonomous agentic AI systems--with the capacity to plan and act towards goals--promises both greater educational personalization and greater disruption. This chapter argues that successfully navigating these innovations requires balancing three core tensions: (1) Implementation Feasibility, or the practical capacity to integrate AI sustainably into real classrooms; (2) Adaptation Speed, or the mismatch between fast-evolving AI capabilities and the slower pace of educational change; and (3) Mission Alignment, or the need to ensure AI applications uphold educational values such as equity, privacy, and pedagogical integrity. First, we review early evidence of generative and agentic AI in various sectors and in frontline education to illustrate these tensions in context. Then, we present a three-tension framework to guide decision-makers in evaluating and designing AI initiatives across K-12 and higher education. We provide examples of how the framework can be applied to plan responsible AI deployments, and we identify emerging trends--such as curriculum-linked AI agents and educator-informed AI design--along with open research directions. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for educational leaders to proactively engage with the opportunities and challenges of AI, so that this technology can be harnessed to enhance teaching and learning in the decade ahead.

Jason Fournier, Kacper Łodzikowski

Imagine Learning · Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland · Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

AI in Education Generative AI in Education AI Governance Responsible AI Agentic AI

Apr 29, 2026cs.CL

From Black-Box Confidence to Measurable Trust in Clinical AI: A Framework for Evidence, Supervision, and Staged Autonomy

Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression. In medicine, trust must be engineered as a measurable system property grounded in evidence, supervision, and operational boundaries of AI autonomy. This article proposes a practical framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy. Rather than replacing deterministic clinical logic wholesale with end-to-end black-box models, the proposed approach combines a deterministic core, a patient-specific AI assistant for contextual validation, a multi-tier model escalation mechanism, and a human supervision layer for verification, escalation, and risk control. We demonstrate that trust also depends on selective verification of clinically critical findings, bounded clinical context, disciplined prompt architecture, and careful evaluation on realistic cases. Classifier-driven modular prompting is examined as an incremental path to scaling clinical depth without sacrificing prompt performance and without waiting for complete rule-based coverage. To operationalize trust, a set of trust metrics is proposed, built on metrological principles -- measurement uncertainty, calibration, traceability -- enabling quantitative rather than subjective assessment of each architectural layer. In this perspective, trustworthy clinical AI emerges not as a property of an individual model, but as an architectural outcome of a system into which evidence trails, human oversight, tiered escalation, and graduated action rights are embedded from the outset.

Serhii Zabolotnii, Viktoriia Holinko, Olha Antonenko

Cherkasy State Business College, Cherkasy, Ukraine · healthPrecision, New York, NY, USA

Clinical Decision Support Trust in AI Human Oversight of AI Responsible AI

Apr 29, 2026cs.HC

Culturally Aware GenAI Risks for Youth: Perspectives from Youth, Parents, and Teachers in a Non-Western Context

Generative AI tools are widely used by youth and have introduced new privacy and safety challenges. While prior research has explored youth's safety in GenAI within western context, it often overlooks the cultural, religious, and social dimensions of technology use that strongly shape youths digital experiences in countries like Saudi Arabia. To address the gap, this study explores children (aged 7 to 17), parents and teachers interactions with GenAI tools and risk perceptions through non-western lens. Through a mixed methods approach, we analyzed 736 Reddit and 1,262 X(Twitter) posts and conducted interviews with 31 Saudi Arabian participants (8 youth, 13 parents, 10 teachers). Our findings highlight context dependent and relational privacy and safety of GenAI from non-western context which often formed by communal structure and prescribed norms. We found significant risks tied to youths disclosure of personal and family information, which conflict with culturally rooted expectations of modesty, privacy, and honor, particularly when youth seek emotional support from GenAI. These risks further compounded by socio economic factors such as cost-saving practices leading to the use of shared GenAI accounts (e.g.ChatGPT) within families or even among strangers. We provide design implication reflecting on parents and teachers expectation of how youth should use GenAI. This work lays groundwork for inclusive, context sensitive parental controls that adhere to cultural norms and values.

Aljawharah Alzahrani, Tory Park, Tanusree Sharma

Pennsylvania State University

LLM Safety Human-Centered AI AI Safety Responsible AI

Apr 28, 2026cs.CY

Beyond Tool Adoption: A Practical Five-Stage Developmental Continuum for AI Literacy in Higher Education

Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency for all university graduates. Yet students' engagement with AI tools often clusters at two extremes: avoidance driven by fear, mistrust, ethical concern, or lack of access, and uncritical reliance that produces fluent output while masking misunderstanding. Existing AI literacy frameworks provide valuable competency definitions, but most offer limited guidance for diagnosing where learners begin and how they progress toward responsible, critical engagement. This paper proposes a five-stage AI Literacy Continuum: 0) Not Yet Engaged, 1) Uncritical Use, 2) Informed Use, 3) Critical Evaluation, and 4) Improvement --that describes developmental orientations toward AI use in higher education. The continuum complements dimensional frameworks by providing educators with a practical diagnostic and instructional pathway aligned with international frameworks, including UNESCO and OECD. We present a design-based implementation case from North Carolina State University, where credit-bearing courses and intensive hands-on workshops engaged more than 330 participants between Fall 2024 and Spring 2026. Because the implementation did not use a validated pre/post instrument or comparison group, we frame the findings as observational and practice-based: participants exhibited behaviors consistent with movement from non-engagement or uncritical use toward informed engagement, while sustained and discipline-embedded experiences produced stronger evidence of critical evaluation and improvement-oriented practice. We discuss curricular pathways, opportunity considerations, assessment strategies, and argue that AI literacy should be understood not as tool adoption alone but as a developmental capacity to understand, evaluate, and responsibly apply AI systems in disciplinary and societal contexts.

J. Paul Liu, Rachel Levy

1. Dept of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences; 2. AI Hub for Science; 3. Center of Geospatial Analytics; 4. Data Science and AI Academy; 5. Department of Mathematics North Carolina State University

AI in Education AI Literacy Responsible AI

Apr 27, 2026cs.CY

Why AI Harms Can't Be Fixed One Identity at a Time: What 5300 Incident Reports Reveal About Intersectionality

AI risk assessment is the primary tool for identifying harms caused by AI systems. These include intersectional harms, which arise from the interaction between identity categories (e.g., class and skin tone) and which do not occur, or occur differently, when those categories are considered separately. Yet existing AI risk assessments are still built around isolated identity categories, and when intersections are considered, they focus almost exclusively on race and gender. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of documented AI incidents, we show that AI harms do not occur one identity category at a time. Using a structured rubric applied with a Large Language Model (LLM), we analyze 5,300 reports from 1,200 documented incidents in the AI Incident Database, the most curated source of incident data. From these reports, we identify 1,513 harmed subjects and their associated identity categories, achieving 98% accuracy. At the level of individual categories, we find that age and political identity appear in documented AI harms at rates comparable to race and gender. At the level of intersecting categories, harm is amplified up to three times at specific intersections: adolescent girls, lower-class people of color, and upper-class political elites. We argue that intersectionality should be a core component of AI risk assessment to more accurately capture how harms are produced and distributed across social groups.

Edyta Bogucka, Sanja Šćepanović, Daniele Quercia

Nokia Bell Labs, Cambridge, United Kingdom · University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom · Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

AI Risk Management Algorithmic Bias Intersectional Fairness Responsible AI

Apr 26, 2026cs.HC

From Rights to Rites: Expectations Management in Smart-Home AI

Domestic voice assistants and smart-home devices are increasingly embedded in everyday routines, yet their ethics are often treated as an afterthought or delegated to compliance teams. To explore how expectations about smart-home AI are constructed and managed, we conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with designers, developers, and researchers from major smart-home platforms (Amazon Alexa, Microsoft Azure IoT, and Google Nest). Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, we develop Expectations Management (EM): a culturally embedded model describing how practitioners shape, calibrate, and repair expectations by balancing organisational rights with culturally situated rites. We show that EM differs from expectation-confirmation theory and trust-calibration by foregrounding moral judgement, situated action, and cross-cultural variation. Our analysis reveals four recurring design tensions: automation vs. autonomy, helpfulness vs. intrusiveness, personalisation vs. predictability, and transparency vs. obscurity and distils them into a five-phase EM Design Playbook that supports moral prudence. We discuss implications for responsible smart-home design and offer guidance for human-centred AI.

Varad Vishwarupe, Ivan Flechais, Marina Jirotka +1

¹ Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford · ² Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford

Human-AI Interaction Responsible AI

Apr 26, 2026cs.CY

The Limits of Artificial Companionship

This Article argues that conversations with companion chatbot should be subject to a clear structural distinction between commercial and non-commercial contexts. The insertion of undisclosed promotional content into affective or relational exchanges should be prohibited, as it collapses the boundary between market transaction and communicative intimacy in ways that erode user autonomy and conversational context. The Article begins by theorizing digital companionship as a sociotechnical form that reconfigures intimacy, dependence and relational vulnerability. It then introduces the potential economic harms derived from conversational advertising. The Article ultimately argues for a firm legal and social distinction between commercial and non-commercial conversational contexts as a precondition for the responsible stabilization of these technologies within social life.

Mauricio Figueroa

Durham University, Law School

Human-AI Interaction AI Governance Conversational Agents Responsible AI

Apr 23, 2026cs.CY

Mathematical Modelling of Ethical AI Use in Higher Education: A Coordination Game Framework for Future-Facing Learning

The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is reshaping assessment practices and intensifying concerns around academic integrity, fairness, and learning quality. While institutional responses increasingly emphasise policy guidance and ethical principles, there remains limited formal understanding of how collective norms of responsible or opportunistic AI use emerge and stabilise within student cohorts. This paper reframes student AI use in assessment as a coordination problem shaped by peer expectations and assessment design rather than individual compliance alone. We develop a coordination-based evolutionary game-theoretic framework that captures learning value, effort, perceived fairness, and transparency, with institutional AI governance modelled implicitly through reflective assessment incentives. We use analytical results and finite-population simulations to reveal threshold-driven behavioural transitions in student AI use: small, well-calibrated changes in reflective assessment incentives can trigger rapid shifts towards responsible, learning-oriented AI-use norms, whereas weak or misaligned incentives allow opportunistic practices to persist. These non-linear dynamics explain why policy statements alone often fail to change behaviour, while modest assessment redesigns can have disproportionate effects. By providing a mechanism-level account of how assessment structures shape collective AI-use practices, this work offers higher education institutions an analytically grounded tool for Future Facing Learning, supporting proportionate, pedagogy-led AI governance without reliance on surveillance or punitive enforcement.

Ndidi Bianca Ogbo, Zhao Song, Shatha Ghareeb +1

School of Computing, Engineering and Digital Technologies, Teesside University, United Kingdom

Educational Assessment Generative AI in Education AI Governance Responsible AI

Apr 21, 2026cs.CY

Frictionless Love: Associations Between AI Companion Roles and Behavioral Addiction

AI companion chatbots increasingly shape how people seek social and emotional connection, sometimes substituting for relationships with romantic partners, friends, teachers, or even therapists. When these systems adopt those metaphorical roles, they are not neutral: such roles structure people's ways of interacting, distribute perceived AI harms and benefits, and may reflect behavioral addiction signs. Yet these role-dependent risks remain poorly understood. We analyze 248,830 posts from seven prominent Reddit communities describing interactions with AI companions. We identify ten recurring metaphorical roles (for example, soulmate, philosopher, and coach) and show that each role supports distinct ways of interacting. We then extract the perceived AI harms and AI benefits associated with these role-specific interactions and link them to behavioral addiction signs, all of which has been inferred from the text in the posts. AI soulmate companions are associated with romance-centered ways of interacting, offering emotional support but also introducing emotional manipulation and distress, culminating in strong attachment. In contrast, AI coach and guardian companions are associated with practical benefits such as personal growth and task support, yet are nonetheless more frequently associated with behavioral addiction signs such as daily life disruptions and damage to offline relationships. These findings show that metaphorical roles are a central ethical design concern for responsible AI companions.

Vibhor Agarwal, Ke Zhou, Edyta Paulina Bogucka +1

Nokia Bell Labs, Cambridge, United Kingdom · Nokia Bell Labs , Cambridge, United Kingdom · University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom +1

AI Companions Human-AI Interaction Responsible AI

Apr 21, 2026cs.HC

Relational AI in Education: Reciprocity, Participatory Design, and Indigenous Worldviews

Education is not merely the transmission of information or the optimisation of individual performance; it is a fundamentally social, constructive, and relational practice. However, recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) increasingly emphasise efficiency, automation, and individualised assistance, risking the weakening of relational learning processes. Despite growing adoption, AI in education (AIED) research has yet to fully articulate how AI can be designed in ways that sustain the social and ecological relationships through which learning occurs. In this paper, we re-centre education as relational and frame learner-AI interactions as context-specific relationships with clearly defined purposes and boundaries, rather than positioning them as substitutes for, or replacements of, human interaction. Grounded in participatory design practices and inspired by Indigenous worldviews (including Aboriginal Australian, Native American, and Mesoamerican traditions) that foreground reciprocity and relational accountability, we argue that meaningful educational AI should support learning with others rather than replace them. We advance this perspective by: i) conceptualising AIED as a relational design problem grounded in reciprocity; ii) articulating key tensions introduced by GenAI in education; and iii) outlining design directions that expand the AIED design space toward reciprocity, including when not to use AI, how to define pedagogical boundaries, and how to support responsible uses of AIED innovations that sustain communities and natural environments.

Roberto Martinez-Maldonado, Vanessa Echeverria, Jenna Hawes +5

Monash University, Australia · RMIT, Australia · Ninti One, Australia +1

AI in Education Generative AI in Education Human-AI Co-Creation Responsible AI

Apr 20, 2026cs.AI

The implicated scientist: on the role of AI researchers in the development of weapons systems

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in modern weapons systems. Notably, these systems have recently been involved in mass killings and destruction at scale. Furthermore, there is currently a strong interest and competition among powerful players to accelerate the proliferation of weapons with automated or AI-based components, a phenomenon known as AI arms race. This competition poses a risk of causing even more deaths and devastation in the future, as well as increased power and wealth inequality. In this work, we aim to shed light on the role of AI researchers as implicated subjects in the harms caused by weapons enabled by AI technologies. We investigate and discuss the specifics of this implication and explore ways to transfigure this position of implication into one of differentiated, long-distance solidarity with the victims of technologically fortified injustices.

Alexandra Volokhova, Alex Hernandez-Garcia

Universit´e de Montr´eal, Mila – Quebec AI Institute Montreal, QC, Canada

AI Accountability Responsible AI

Apr 17, 2026cs.CY

From Vulnerable Data Subjects to Vulnerabilizing Data Practices: Navigating the Protection Paradox in AI-Based Analyses of Platformized Lives

This paper traces a conceptual shift from understanding vulnerability as a static, essentialized property of data subjects to examining how it is actively enacted through data practices. Unlike reflexive ethical frameworks focused on missing or counter-data, we address the condition of abundance inherent to platformized life-a context where a near inexhaustible mass of data points already exists, shifting the ethical challenge to the researcher's choices in operating upon this existing mass. We argue that the ethical integrity of data science depends not just on who is studied, but on how technical pipelines transform "vulnerable" individuals into data subjects whose vulnerability can be further precarized. We develop this argument through an AI for Social Good (AI4SG) case: a journalist's request to use computer vision to quantify child presence in monetized YouTube 'family vlogs' for regulatory advocacy. This case reveals a "protection paradox": how data-driven efforts to protect vulnerable subjects can inadvertently impose new forms of computational exposure, reductionism, and extraction. Using this request as a point of departure, we perform a methodological deconstruction of the AI pipeline to show how granular technical decisions are ethically constitutive. We contribute a reflexive ethics protocol that translates these insights into a reflexive roadmap for research ethics surrounding platformized data subjects. Organized around four critical junctures-dataset design, operationalization, inference, and dissemination-the protocol identifies technical questions and ethical tensions where well-intentioned work can slide into renewed extraction or exposure. For every decision point, the protocol offers specific prompts to navigate four cross-cutting vulnerabilizing factors: exposure, monetization, narrative fixing, and algorithmic optimization. Rather than uncritically...

Delfina S. Martinez Pandiani, Ella Streefkerk, Laurens Naudts +1

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands · Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany · KU Leuven, Belgium

Apr 10, 2026cs.CY

Post-Deployment Accountability in AI Governance: A Cross-Regulatory Empirical Analysis of AI Incidents

Post-deployment accountability has become central to AI governance, yet little empirical evidence shows whether monitoring, incident reporting, and impact assessment obligations are visible when AI systems fail. This study analyzes real-world AI incidents from the AI Incident Database (2020--2026) and codes them against nine post-deployment provisions from the EU AI Act, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and the GDPR. The findings show substantial accountability gaps: 77.1% of incidents lack evidence of EU AI Act post-market monitoring, and 99.6% lack documented Data-Protection Impact Assessment evidence. Governance gaps are also systemic, with 9.8% of incidents simultaneously non-compliant under two or more regimes. Incidents detected through internal monitoring show much higher compliance than externally detected incidents (87.5% vs 5.3% under the EU AI Act; 95.8% vs 58.1% under NIST), suggesting that monitoring capacity is a key condition for effective post-deployment governance. Building on these findings, the paper proposes the Proactive AI Governance Compliance Framework (PAGCF), a four-phase lifecycle for pre-deployment assessment, continuous monitoring, incident preparedness, and cross-framework verification.

Ummara Mumtaz, Summaya Mumtaz

AI Accountability AI Governance Responsible AI

Jan 14, 2026cs.CY

A Marketplace for AI-Generated Adult Content and Deepfakes

Generative AI systems increasingly enable the production of highly realistic synthetic media. Civitai, a popular community-driven platform for AI-generated content, operates a monetized feature called Bounties, which allows users to commission the generation of content in exchange for payment. To examine how this mechanism is used and what content it incentivizes, we conduct a longitudinal analysis of all publicly available bounty requests collected over a 14-month period following the platform's launch. We find that the bounty marketplace is dominated by tools that let users steer AI models toward content they were not trained to generate. At the same time, requests for content that is "Not Safe For Work" are widespread and have increased steadily over time, now comprising a majority of all bounties. Participation in bounty creation is uneven, with 20% of requesters accounting for roughly half of requests. Requests for "deepfake" - media depicting identifiable real individuals - exhibit a higher concentration than other types of bounties. A nontrivial subset of these requests involves explicit deepfakes despite platform policies prohibiting such content. These bounties disproportionately target female celebrities, revealing a pronounced gender asymmetry in social harm. Together, these findings show how monetized, community-driven generative AI platforms can produce gendered harms, raising questions about consent, governance, and enforcement.

Shalmoli Ghosh, Matthew R. DeVerna, Filippo Menczer

Indiana University Bloomington · Stanford University

AI Governance Responsible AI

Oct 4, 2025cs.CY

AI Adoption Across Mission-Driven Organizations

Despite AI's promise, little is known about how mission-driven organizations (MDOs) adopt AI. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 experts and leaders within environmental, humanitarian, and development organizations across the Global North and South. We find that MDOs adopt AI selectively, with uses in content creation and data analysis, while maintaining human oversight for mission-critical applications. In case of conflicts between the organization's values and efficiency, participants consider sustainability, neutrality, and community trust as constraints that could limit or prevent AI adoption. Individual adoption of AI is not translated into organizational practice due to fragmented data infrastructure, lack of in-house expertise, inertia, ethical challenges, and dependency on vendors. Participants expected AI use in MDOs to involve institutional control over infrastructure, support for missions, and human-centered human-AI collaboration. We contribute an analysis on how MDOs manage AI adoption, identify barriers to responsible deployment, and provide recommendations for designing mission-aligned AI systems.

Dalia Ali, Muneeb Ahmed, Hailan Wang +6

Technical University of Munich Munich, Germany · Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey, USA · WWF Mumbai, India +1

AI Governance Human Oversight of AI Responsible AI

Jun 11, 2025cs.HC

"I Said Things I Needed to Hear Myself": Peer Support as an Emotional, Organisational, and Sociotechnical Practice in Singapore

Peer support plays a vital role in expanding access to mental health care by providing empathetic, community-based support outside formal clinical systems. As digital platforms increasingly mediate such support, the design and impact of these technologies remain under-examined, particularly in Asian contexts. This paper presents findings from an interview study with 20 peer supporters in Singapore, who operate across diverse online, offline, and hybrid environments. Through a thematic analysis, we unpack how participants start, conduct, and sustain peer support, highlighting their motivations, emotional labour, and the sociocultural dimensions shaping their practices. Building on this grounded understanding, we surface design directions for culturally responsive digital tools that scaffold rather than supplant relational care. Drawing insights from qualitative accounts, we offer a situated perspective on how AI might responsibly augment peer support. This research contributes to human-centred computing by articulating the lived realities of peer supporters and proposing design implications for trustworthy and context-sensitive AI in mental health.

Kellie Yu Hui Sim, Kenny Tsu Wei Choo

Singapore University of Technology and Design Singapore

Emotional Support Conversation Human-Centered AI Responsible AI