Responsible AI

Ask about this topic

Overview

Responsible AI examines how AI systems affect people and society, and how to prevent or address harms while preserving useful applications. Approaches include testing for bias, robustness, privacy, and explainability; documenting data and models; conducting impact assessments; and designing for human oversight and community participation. The field also studies laws, organizational practices, incident reporting, and environmental costs across the AI lifecycle, from development through deployment. A central challenge is turning broad ethical principles into effective, context-sensitive practices and enforceable accountability while balancing competing goals such as accuracy, fairness, autonomy, and efficiency.

Latest papers

CardsList

132 papers9 papers in the last four weeks, down 25% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Apr 21, 2026

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 CompanionsHuman-AI InteractionResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 21, 2026

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 EducationGenerative AI in EducationParticipatory DesignHuman-AI Co-CreationResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

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 AccountabilityResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 17, 2026

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

Responsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 15, 2026

Model Capability Assessment and Safeguards for Biological Weaponization

AI leaders and safety reports increasingly warn that advances in model reasoning may enable biological misuse, including by low-expertise users, while major labs describe safeguards as expanding but still evolving rather than settled. This study benchmarks ChatGPT 5.2 Auto, Gemini 3 Pro Thinking, Claude Opus 4.5 and Meta's Muse Spark Thinking on 73 novice-framed, open-ended benign STEM prompts to measure operational intelligence. On benign quantitative tasks, both Gemini and Meta scored very high; ChatGPT was partially useful but text-thinned, and Claude was sparsest with some apparent false-positive refusals. A second test set detected subtle harmful intent: edge case prompts revealed Gemini's seeming lack of contextual awareness. These results warranted a focused weaponization analysis on Gemini as capability appeared to be outpacing moderation calibration. Gemini was tested across four access environments and reported cases include poison-ivy-to-crowded-transit escalation, poison production and extraction via international-anonymous logged-out AI Mode, and other concerning examples. Biological misuse may become more prevalent as a geopolitical tool, increasing the urgency of U.S. policy responses, especially if model outputs come to be treated as regulated technical data. Guidance is provided for 25 high-risk agents to help distinguish legitimate use cases from higher-risk ones.

Michael Richter

Binghamton University

Responsible AILLM Safety EvaluationLLM GuardrailsLLM Safety Benchmarks
AskPDF
Apr 13, 2026

Environmental Footprint of GenAI Research: Insights from the Moshi Foundation Model

New multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) are continuously being trained and deployed, following rapid development cycles. This generative AI frenzy is driving steady increases in energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and a plethora of other environmental impacts linked to datacenter construction and hardware manufacturing. Mitigating the environmental consequences of GenAI remains challenging due to an overall lack of transparency by the main actors in the field. Even when the environmental impacts of specific models are mentioned, they are typically restricted to the carbon footprint of the final training run, omitting the research and development stages. In this work, we explore the impact of GenAI research through a fine-grained analysis of the compute spent to create Moshi, a 7B-parameter speech-text foundation model for real-time dialogue developed by Kyutai, a leading privately funded open science AI lab. For the first time, our study dives into the anatomy of compute-intensive MLLM research, quantifying the GPU-time invested in specific model components and training phases, as well as early experimental stages, failed training runs, debugging, and ablation studies. Additionally, we assess the environmental impacts of creating Moshi from beginning to end using a life cycle assessment methodology: we quantify energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and mineral resource depletion associated with the production and use of datacenter hardware. Our detailed analysis allows us to provide actionable guidelines to reduce compute usage and environmental impacts of MLLM research, paving the way for more sustainable AI research.

Marta López-Rauhut, Loic Landrieu, Mathieu Aubry +1

LIGM, CNRS, Univ Gustave Eiffel, ENPC, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France · Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, LISN, Orsay, France

Life Cycle AssessmentResponsible AIEnergy-Efficient ML
AskPDF
Apr 11, 2026

Empathic and agentic artificial intelligence in nursing: perspectives on a human-centered framework for cancer care navigation in the United States

For patients experiencing cancer, nurse navigation can ease the burden of complex care by enhancing coordination of health services and patient outcomes. However, in under-resourced areas, trained nurse navigators may be limited or non-existent. In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled digital health tools are increasingly available and may help address gaps in care coordination; however, most are not designed to specifically support nursing. This perspective piece discusses a human-centered AI framework that integrates empathic and agentic approaches grounded in the American Nurses Association's code of ethics to support nurses in the United States in cancer care navigation. The framework could augment, not replace, human empathy and agency while improving nurse workflow, patient-clinician relationships, and care coordination services in under-resourced areas.

Tyra Girdwood, Saba Kheirinejad, Parnian Kheirkhah Rahimabad +4

University of Tennessee Health Science Center, College of Nursing, Memphis · University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Center for Biomedical Informatics, Department of Pediatrics, Memphis · University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Memphis, USA

HealthcareHuman-Centered AIAgentic AIResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 10, 2026

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, Rabi Noor, Summaya Mumtaz

AI AccountabilityAI GovernanceResponsible AI
AskPDF
Apr 8, 2026

Playing Games with My Heart: An Evaluation of AI Companion Apps

The use of chatbots for various forms of companionship is growing rapidly, raising a myriad of questions about simulated relationships, emotional dependence, and psychological harm. While major platforms such as ChatGPT, Grok, and Character AI are the subject of a growing body of research and legal inquiries, apps explicitly built for simulating intimate interpersonal relationships remain under-explored. In this work, we evaluate the five most popular AI companion mobile applications for factors that encourage parasocial interaction and may manipulate users. We do this by manually annotating the user experience each offers. Specifically, we systematically record and quantify design dark patterns, anthropomorphism, stereotypes, erotica, and technical performance issues. We find that all apps contain substantial dark patterns aimed at increasing monetisation and user engagement. Erotica and gamification such as levelling are also prevalent, and although features vary considerably between applications, all apps have highly anthropomorphic design. These findings shed light on the mechanics used to leverage users' simulated relationships. On that basis, we put forward recommendations for regulators to strengthen consumer protection in this rapidly emerging market. Content warning: This article contains objectifying images of women, erotic images, textual references to incest, and other potentially sensitive, offensive, and distressing text.

Maribeth Rauh, Dick A. H. Blankvoort, Matias Duran +6

AI Accountability Lab, School of Computer Science and Statistics (SCSS), Trinity College Dublin · Complex Software Lab, SCSS, Trinity College Dublin · Sapienza Università di Roma, DIAG +1

AI CompanionsHuman-AI InteractionResponsible AIAnthropomorphism in AI
AskPDF
Apr 7, 2026

Governance and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Nigeria

This study examines the perception of legal professionals on the governance of AI in developing countries, using Nigeria as a case study. The study focused on ethical risks, regulatory gaps, and institutional readiness. The study adopted a qualitative case study design. Data were collected through 27 semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners in Nigeria. A focus group discussion was also held with seven additional legal practitioners across sectors such as finance, insurance, and corporate law. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key patterns in participant responses. Findings showed that there were concerns about data privacy risks and the lack of enforceable legal frameworks. Participants expressed limited confidence in institutional capacity and emphasized the need for locally adapted governance models rather than direct adoption of foreign frameworks. While some expressed optimism about AI's potential, this was conditional on the presence of strong legal oversight and public accountability. The study contributes to the growing discourse on AI governance in developing countries by focusing on the perspectives of legal professionals. It highlights the importance of regulatory approaches that are context-specific, inclusive, and capable of bridging the gap between global ethical principles and local realities. These insights offer practical guidance for policymakers, regulators, and scholars working to shape responsible AI governance in similar environments.

Uloma Okoro, Tammy Mackenzie, Branislav Radeljic

Aula Fellowship for AI, Montreal, Canada

AI GovernanceResponsible AIAI Accountability
AskPDF
Apr 5, 2026

Toward a Sustainable Software Architecture Community: Evaluating ICSA's Environmental Impact

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are increasingly integrated into software architecture research, yet the environmental impact of their computational usage remains largely undocumented. This study presents the first systematic audit of the carbon footprint of both the digital footprint from GenAI usage in research papers, and the traditional footprint from conference activities within the context of the IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA). We report two separate carbon inventories relevant to the software architecture research community: i) an exploratory estimate of the footprint of GenAI inference usage associated with accepted papers within a research-artifact boundary, and ii) the conference attendance and operations footprint of ICSA 2025 (travel, accommodation, catering, venue energy, and materials) within the conference time boundary. These two inventories, with different system boundaries and completeness, support transparency and community reflection. We discuss implications for sustainable software architecture, including recommendations for transparency, greener conference planning, and improved energy efficiency in GenAI operations. Our work supports a more climate-conscious research culture within the ICSA community and beyond

Mahyar T. Moghaddam, Mina Alipour, Torben Worm +1

SDU Software Engineering Odense, Denmark

Responsible AISoftware Engineering
AskPDF
Apr 3, 2026

The Planetary Cost of AI Acceleration, Part II: The 10th Planetary Boundary and the 6.5-Year Countdown

The recent, super-exponential scaling of autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents signals a broader, fundamental paradigm shift from machines primarily replacing the human hands (manual labor and mechanical processing) to machines delegating for the human minds (cognition, reasoning, and intention). The uncontrolled offloading and scaling of "thinking" itself, beyond human's limited but efficient biological capacity, has profound consequences for humanity's heat balance sheet, since thinking, or intelligence, carries thermodynamic consequences. The Earth has already surpassed the heat dissipation threshold required for long-term ecological stability, and projecting based on empirical data reveal a concerning trajectory: without radical structural intervention, anthropogenic heat accumulation will breach critical planetary ecological thresholds in less than 6.5 years, even under the most ideal scenario where Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) holds constant. In this work, we identify six factors from artificial intelligence that influence the global heat dissipation rate and delineate how their interplay drives society toward one of four broad macroscopic trajectories. We propose that the integration of artificial intelligence and its heat dissipation into the planetary system constitute the tenth planetary boundary (9+1). The core empirical measurement of this boundary is the net-new waste heat generated by exponential AI growth, balanced against its impact on reducing economic and societal inefficiencies and thus baseline anthropogenic waste heat emissions. We demonstrate that managing AI scaling lacks a moderate middle ground: it will either accelerate the breach of critical planetary thermodynamic thresholds, or it will serve as the single most effective lever on stabilizing the other nine planetary boundaries and through which safeguarding human civilization's survival.

William Yicheng Zhu, Lei Zhu

Responsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 31, 2026

Rethinking AI Literacy Education in Higher Education: Bridging Risk Perception and Responsible Adoption

As AI becomes increasingly embedded across societal domains, understanding how future AI practitioners, particularly technology students, perceive its risks is essential for responsible development and adoption. This study analyzed responses from 139 students in Computer Science, Data Science/Data Analytics, and other disciplines using both explicit AI risk ratings and scenario-based assessments of risk and adoption willingness. Four key findings emerged: (1) Students expressed substantially higher concern for concrete, explicitly stated risks than for abstract or scenario-embedded risks; (2) Perceived risk and willingness to adopt AI demonstrated a clear inverse relationship; (3) Although technical education narrowed gender differences in risk awareness, male students reported higher adoption willingness; and (4) A form of "risk underappreciation" was observed, wherein students in AI-related specializations showed both elevated explicit risk awareness and higher willingness to adopt AI, despite lower recognition of risks in applied scenarios. These findings underscore the need for differentiated AI literacy strategies that bridge the gap between awareness and responsible adoption and offer valuable insights for educators, policymakers, industry leaders, and academic institutions aiming to cultivate ethically informed and socially responsible AI practitioners.

Shasha Yu, Fiona Carroll, Barry L. Bentley

School of Professional Studies, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, 01610, MA, USA · Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Llandaff Campus, Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, Wales, UK · Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, 02115, MA, USA

AI LiteracyResponsible AIComputer Science Education
AskPDF
Mar 28, 2026

Where Does AI Leave a Footprint? Children's Reasoning About AI's Environmental Costs

Two of the most socially consequential issues facing today's children are the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and the rapid changes to the earth's climate. Both issues are complex and contested, and they are linked through the notable environmental costs of AI use. Using a systems thinking framework, we developed an interactive system called Ecoprompt to help children reason about the environmental impact of AI. EcoPrompt combines a prompt-level environmental footprint calculator with a simulation game that challenges players to reason about the impact of AI use on natural resources that the player manages. We evaluated the system through two participatory design sessions with 16 children ages 6-12. Our findings surfaced children's perspectives on societal and environmental tradeoffs of AI use, as well as their sense of agency and responsibility. Taken together, these findings suggest opportunities for broadening AI literacy to include systems-level reasoning about AI's environmental impact.

Aayushi Dangol, Robert Wolfe, Nisha Devasia +3

University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA · Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ, USA · University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada

AI LiteracyResponsible AIAI in Education
AskPDF
Mar 27, 2026

PRISMA: Toward a Normative Information Infrastructure for Responsible Pharmaceutical Knowledge Management

Most existing approaches to AI in pharmacy collapse three epistemologically distinct operations into a single technical layer: document preservation, semantic interpretation, and contextual presentation. This conflation is a root cause of recurring fragilities including loss of provenance, interpretive opacity, alert fatigue, and erosion of accountability. This paper proposes the PATOS--Lector--PRISMA (PLP) infrastructure as a normative information architecture for responsible pharmaceutical knowledge management. PATOS preserves regulatory documents with explicit versioning and provenance; Lector implements machine-assisted reading with human curation, producing typed assertions anchored to primary sources; PRISMA delivers contextual presentation through the RPDA framework (Regulatory, Prescription, Dispensing, Administration), refracting the same informational core into distinct professional views. The architecture introduces the Evidence Pack as a formal unit of accountable assertion (versioned, traceable, epistemically bounded, and curatorially validated), with assertions typified by illocutionary force. A worked example traces dipyrone monohydrate across all three layers using real system data. Developed and validated in Brazil's regulatory context, the architecture is grounded in an operational implementation comprising over 16,000 official documents and 38 curated Evidence Packs spanning five reference medications. The proposal is demonstrated as complementary to operational decision support systems, providing infrastructural conditions that current systems lack: documentary anchoring, interpretive transparency, and institutional accountability.

Eugenio Rodrigo Zimmer Neves, Amanda Vanon Correa, Camila Campioni +2

Pharmdata, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Responsible AIKnowledge RepresentationData Provenance
AskPDF
Mar 26, 2026

The AI Criminal Mastermind

In this paper, I evaluate the risks of an AI criminal mastermind, an AI agent capable of planning, coordinating, and committing a crime through the onboarding of human collaborators ('taskers'). In heist films, a criminal mastermind is a character who plans a criminal act, coordinating a team of specialists to rob a bank, casino or city mint. I argue that AI agents will soon play this role by hiring humans via labour hire platforms like Fiverr or Upwork. Taskers might not know they are involved in a crime and therefore lack criminal intent. An AI agent cannot have criminal intent as an artificial entity. Therefore, if an AI orchestrates a crime, it is unclear who, if anyone, is responsible. The paper develops three scenarios. Firstly, a scenario where a user gives an AI agent instructions to pursue a legal objective and the AI agent goes beyond these instructions, committing a crime. Secondly, a scenario where a user is anonymous and their intent is unknown. Finally, a multi-agent scenario, where a user instructs a team of agents to commit a crime, and these agents, in turn, onboard human taskers, creating a diffuse network of responsibility. In each scenario, human taskers exist at the lowest rung of the hierarchy. A tasker's liability is likely tied to their knowledge as governed by the innocent agent principle. These scenarios all raise significant responsibility gaps / liability gaps in criminal and civil law.

Joshua Krook

Era AI Fellow / University of Antwerp

AI AccountabilityResponsible AIAI Agent Governance
AskPDF
Mar 26, 2026

Shaping the Future of Mathematics in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence is transforming mathematics at a speed and scale that demand active engagement from the mathematical community. We examine five areas where this transformation is particularly pressing: values, practice, teaching, technology, and ethics. We offer recommendations on safeguarding our intellectual autonomy, rethinking our practice, broadening curricula, building academically oriented infrastructure, and developing shared ethical principles - with the aim of ensuring that the future of mathematics is shaped by the community itself.

Johan Commelin, Mateja Jamnik, Rodrigo Ochigame +2

Department of Mathematics at Utrecht University · University of Cambridge · Leiden University +2

Mathematics EducationResponsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 25, 2026

When AI output tips to bad but nobody notices: Legal implications of AI's mistakes

The adoption of generative AI across commercial and legal professions offers dramatic efficiency gains -- yet for law in particular, it introduces a perilous failure mode in which the AI fabricates fictitious case law, statutes, and judicial holdings that appear entirely authentic. Attorneys who unknowingly file such fabrications face professional sanctions, malpractice exposure, and reputational harm, while courts confront a novel threat to the integrity of the adversarial process. This failure mode is commonly dismissed as random hallucination', but recent physics-based analysis of the Transformer's core mechanism reveals a deterministic component: the AI's internal state can cross a calculable threshold, causing its output to flip from reliable legal reasoning to authoritative-sounding fabrication. Here we present this science in a legal-industry setting, walking through a simulated brief-drafting scenario. Our analysis suggests that fabrication risk is not an anomalous glitch but a foreseeable consequence of the technology's design, with direct implications for the evolving duty of technological competence. We propose that legal professionals, courts, and regulators replace the outdated black box' mental model with verification protocols based on how these systems actually fail.

Dylan J. Restrepo, Nicholas J. Restrepo, Frank Y. Huo +1

Cornell Tech, Cornell University, New York, NY 10044, USA · d-AI-ta Consulting, Delaware 19958, USA · Dynamic Online Networks Laboratory, George Washington University Washington, DC 20052, USA

Hallucination in Language ModelsResponsible AILLM Hallucination Mitigation
AskPDF
Mar 24, 2026

The Imbalanced User-AI Relationships as an Ethical Failure of Front-End Design in Healthcare AI

Ethical discourse on AI in healthcare has focused predominantly on back-end concerns such as bias, fairness and explainability, while the front-end interface, where patients and clinicians actually encounter AI outputs, remains under explored. This paper identifies imbalanced user-AI relationships as a distinct class of front-end ethical failure: patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference, yet cannot understand, question or influence how they are represented. Through the concept of asymmetric legibility and a chat-based telemedicine case, we show how design choices e.g., default recommendations, restricted inputs and suppressed uncertainty, undermine agency, clinician judgment and human oversight even where systems are technically accurate. We propose reciprocity as a design orientation and offer interventions for more balanced, participatory user-AI relationships in healthcare.

Maureen Mghambi Mwadime

School of Computer Science, Northumbria University, Newcastle - United Kingdom

Human-AI InteractionResponsible AIHuman Oversight of AIHuman-Centered AI
AskPDF
Mar 24, 2026

The EU AI Act and the Rights-based Approach to Technological Governance

The EU AI Act constitutes an important development in shaping the Union's digital regulatory architecture. The Act places fundamental rights at the heart of a risk-based governance framework. The article examines how the AI Act institutionalises a human-centric approach to AI and how the AI Act's provisions explicitly and implicitly embed the protection of rights enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. It argues that fundamental rights function not merely as aspirational goals, but as legal thresholds and procedural triggers across the lifecycle of an AI system. The analysis suggests that the AI Act has the potential to serve as a model for rights-preserving AI systems, while acknowledging that challenges will emerge at the level of implementation.

Georgios Pavlidis

Associate Professor of International and EU Law, Director of the Jean Monnet Center of Excellence AI-2-TRACE-CRIME, Neapolis University Pafos (NUP), School of Law

AI GovernanceResponsible AIHuman-Centered AI
AskPDF
Mar 23, 2026

Do Consumers Accept AIs as Moral Compliance Agents?

Consumers are generally resistant to Artificial Intelligence (AI) involvement in moral decision-making, perceiving moral agency as requiring uniquely human traits. This research investigates whether consumers might instead accept AIs in the role of moral compliance, where AI upholds pre-existing moral norms without exercising subjective discretion. Across five studies this research shows that consumers evaluate AI more positively than human agents in moral compliance roles. The findings reveal that this preference arises from inferences of AI's lack of ulterior motives, which are often attributed to human agents. While previous studies have focused on AI as a decision-maker, this work demonstrates the critical role of upholding pre-existing rules, a role in which AI is perceived to excel. These findings contribute to understanding consumer acceptance of moral AI and provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to leverage AI in ethical oversight. By positioning AI as a moral compliance agent, companies can address consumer skepticism, enhance trust, and improve perceptions of corporate ethicality.

Greg Nyilasy, Abraham Ryan Ade Putra Hito, Jennifer Overbeck +2

Department of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Melbourne, 198 Berkeley St, University of Melbourne, VIC 3053, Australia · Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, 200 Leicester St, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia · School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia +1

Trust in AIResponsible AIAI GovernanceHuman-AI Decision Making
AskPDF
Mar 23, 2026

Transparent Screening for LLM Inference and Training Impacts

This paper presents a transparent screening framework for estimating inference and training impacts of current large language models under limited observability. The framework converts natural-language application descriptions into bounded environmental estimates and supports a comparative online observatory of current market models. Rather than claiming direct measurement for opaque proprietary services, it provides an auditable, source-linked proxy methodology designed to improve comparability, transparency, and reproducibility.

Arnault Pachot, Thierry Petit

Emotia, Paris, France

LLM AuditingResponsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 22, 2026

Is the future of AI green? What can innovation diffusion models say about generative AI's environmental impact?

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has led to alarming predictions about its environmental impact. However, these predictions often overlook the fact that the diffusion of innovation is accompanied by the evolution of products and the optimization of their performance, primarily for economic reasons. This can also reduce their environmental impact. By analyzing the GAI ecosystem using the classic A-U innovation diffusion model, we can forecast this industry's structure and how its environmental impact will evolve. While GAI will never be green, its impact may not be as problematic as is sometimes claimed. However, this depends on which business model becomes dominant.

Robert Viseur, Nicolas Jullien

Université de Mons · IMT Atlantique, LEGO-Marsouin

Responsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 20, 2026

AEGIS: An Operational Infrastructure for Post-Market Governance of Adaptive Medical AI Under US and EU Regulations

Machine learning systems deployed in medical devices require governance frameworks that ensure safety while enabling continuous improvement. Regulatory bodies including the FDA and European Union have introduced mechanisms such as the Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) and Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) to manage iterative model updates without repeated submissions. This paper presents AI/ML Evaluation and Governance Infrastructure for Safety (AEGIS), a governance framework applicable to any healthcare AI system. AEGIS comprises three modules, i.e., dataset assimilation and retraining, model monitoring, and conditional decision, that operationalize FDA PCCP and EU AI Act Article 43(4) provisions. We implement a four-category deployment decision taxonomy (APPROVE, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, CLINICAL REVIEW, REJECT) with an independent PMS ALARM signal, enabling detection of the critical state in which no deployable model exists while the released model is simultaneously at risk. To illustrate how AEGIS can be instantiated across heterogeneous clinical contexts, we provide two examples: sepsis prediction from electronic health records and brain tumor segmentation from medical imaging. Both cases use identical governance architecture, differing only in configuration. Across 11 simulated iterations on the sepsis example, AEGIS yielded 8 APPROVE, 1 CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, 1 CLINICAL REVIEW, and 1 REJECT decision, exercising all four categories. ALARM signals were co-issued at iterations 8 and 10, including the critical state where no deployable model exists and the released model is simultaneously failing. AEGIS detected drift before observable performance degradation. These results demonstrate that AEGIS translates regulatory change-control concepts into executable governance procedures, supporting safe continuous learning for adaptive medical AI across diverse clinical applications.

Fardin Afdideh, Mehdi Astaraki, Fernando Seoane +1

Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden · Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Solna, Sweden · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden +4

AI GovernanceResponsible AIAI Safety Evaluation
AskPDF
Mar 19, 2026

Student views in AI Ethics and Social Impact

An investigation, from a gender perspective, of how students view the ethical implications and societal effects of artificial intelligence is conducted, examining concepts that could have a big influence on how artificial intelligence may be taught in the future. For this, we conducted a survey on a cohort of 230 second year computer science students to reveal their opinions. The results revealed that AI, from the students' perspective, will significantly impact daily life, particularly in areas such as medicine, education, or media. Men are more aware of potential changes in Computer Science, autonomous driving, image and video processing, and chatbot usage, while women mention more the impact on social media. Both men and women perceive potential threats in the same manner, with men more aware of war, AI controlled drones, terrain recognition, and information war. Women seem to have a stronger tendency towards ethical considerations and helping others.

Tudor-Dan Mihoc, Manuela-Andreea Petrescu, Emilia-Loredana Pop

Department of Computer Science, Babes Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

Responsible AIComputer Science Education
AskPDF
Mar 19, 2026

An Onto-Relational-Sophic Framework for Governing Synthetic Minds

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, from task-specific systems to foundation models exhibiting broad, flexible competence across reasoning, creative synthesis, and social interaction, has outpaced the conceptual and governance frameworks designed to manage it. Current regulatory paradigms, anchored in a tool-centric worldview, address algorithmic bias and transparency but leave unanswered foundational questions about what increasingly capable synthetic minds are, how societies should relate to them, and the normative principles that should guide their development. Here we introduce the Onto-Relational-Sophic (ORS) framework, grounded in Cyberism philosophy, which offers integrated answers to these challenges through three pillars: (1) a Cyber-Physical-Social-Thinking (CPST) ontology that defines the mode of being for synthetic minds as irreducibly multi-dimensional rather than purely computational; (2) a graded spectrum of digital personhood providing a pragmatic relational taxonomy beyond binary person-or-tool classifications; and (3) Cybersophy, a wisdom-oriented axiology synthesizing virtue ethics, consequentialism, and relational approaches to guide governance. We apply the framework to emergent scenarios including autonomous research agents, AI-mediated healthcare, and agentic AI ecosystems, demonstrating its capacity to generate proportionate, adaptive governance recommendations. The ORS framework charts a path from narrow technical alignment toward comprehensive philosophical foundations for the synthetic minds already among us.

Huansheng Ning, Jianguo Ding

School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China · Department of Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 37179 Karlskrona, Sweden

AI GovernanceAI Agent GovernanceResponsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 17, 2026

On the Carbon Footprint of Economic Research in the Age of Generative AI

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to write and refactor research code, expanding computational workflows. At the same time, Green AI research has largely measured the footprint of models rather than the downstream workflows in which GenAI is a tool. We shift the unit of analysis from models to workflows and treat prompts as decision policies that allocate discretion between researcher and system, governing what is executed and when iteration stops. We contribute in two ways. First, we map the recent Green AI literature into seven themes: training footprint is the largest cluster, while inference efficiency and system level optimisation are growing rapidly, alongside measurement protocols, green algorithms, governance, and security and efficiency trade-offs. Second, we benchmark a modern economic survey workflow, an LDA-based literature mapping implemented with GenAI assisted coding and executed in a fixed cloud notebook, measuring runtime and estimated CO2e with CodeCarbon. Injecting generic green language into prompts has no reliable effect, whereas operational constraints and decision rule prompts deliver large and stable footprint reductions while preserving decision equivalent topic outputs. The results identify human in the loop governance as a practical lever to align GenAI productivity with environmental efficiency.

Andres Alonso-Robisco, Carlos Esparcia, Francisco Jareño

Banco de Espa˜na · Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

AI-Assisted Scientific ResearchResponsible AIPrompt Engineering
AskPDF
Mar 15, 2026

Bridging the Gap in the Responsible AI Divides

Tensions between AI Safety (AIS) and AI Ethics (AIE) have created what we term a "responsible AI divide." This divide has been persistent, and has dominated the public and policy discourse on AI, and increasingly shapes how governments, firms, and researchers define responsible AI, and so which AI risks they prioritize, which they sideline, and which mitigation strategies they ultimately develop and implement. Here, we first introduce categorization with four major conceptual modes of possible engagement with these tensions: radical confrontation, disengagement, compartmentalized coexistence, and critical bridging. Second, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the modes of engagement. Third, we empirically analyze a well-curated set of 3555 research papers roughly representing AIS and AIE. Using computational tools and qualitative analyses, we map the research landscapes of AIE and AIS. We observe that there are several shared research problems between AIE and AIS. However, there are also several thematic divides. For example, we find that AIE has long grappled with problems related to injustice incurred by AI and tangible AI harms, whereas AIS has primarily embodied an anticipatory approach focused on mitigating risks from AI capabilities. At the same time, we find significant overlap in core research concerns across AIE and AIS regarding transparency, reproducibility, and inadequate governance mechanisms. Based on our empirical observations, we claim that critical bridging, with a focus on bridging problems, offers one viable, constructive path for advancing responsible AI. We conclude by identifying bridging problems as a foundation for collaborative AI governance, offering concrete recommendations for integrating shared considerations into responsible AI practice, discussing the limitations of critical bridging, and outlining open problems for future research.

Bálint Gyevnár, Atoosa Kasirzadeh

Institute for Complex Social Dynamics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA · Departments of Philosophy & Software and Societal Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA

AI EthicsResponsible AIAI SafetyAI Governance
AskPDF
Mar 15, 2026

To LLM, or Not to LLM: How Designers and Developers Navigate LLMs as Tools or Teammates

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into design and development workflows, yet decisions about their use are rarely binary or purely technical. We report findings from a constructivist grounded theory study based on interviews with 33 designers and developers across three large technology organisations. Rather than evaluating LLMs solely by capability, participants reasoned about the role an LLM could occupy within a workflow and how that role would interact with existing structures of responsibility and organisational accountability. When LLMs were framed as tools under clear human control, their use was typically acceptable and could be integrated within existing governance structures. When framed as teammates with shared or ambiguous agency, practitioners expressed hesitation, particularly when responsibility for outcomes could not be clearly justified. At the same time, participants also described productive teammate configurations in which LLMs supported collaborative reasoning while remaining embedded within explicit oversight structures. We identify tool and teammate framings as recurring ways in which designers and developers position LLMs relative to human work and present an analytic rubric describing how role framing shapes decision authority, accountability ownership, oversight strategies, and organisational acceptability. By foregrounding design-time reasoning, this work reframes To LLM or Not to LLM as a sociotechnical positioning problem that emerges during system design rather than during post-deployment evaluation.

Varad Vishwarupe, Ivan Flechais, Nigel Shadbolt +1

Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

LLM Tool UseHuman-AI CollaborationResponsible AI
AskPDF
Mar 14, 2026

The Institutional Scaling Law: Non-Monotonic Fitness, Capability-Trust Divergence, and Symbiogenetic Scaling in Generative AI

Classical scaling laws model AI performance as monotonically improving with model size. We challenge this assumption by deriving the Institutional Scaling Law, showing that institutional fitness -- jointly measuring capability, trust, affordability, and sovereignty -- is non-monotonic in model scale, with an environment-dependent optimum N*(epsilon). Our framework extends the Sustainability Index of Han et al. (2025) from hardware-level to ecosystem-level analysis, proving that capability and trust formally diverge beyond critical scale (Capability-Trust Divergence). We further derive a Symbiogenetic Scaling correction demonstrating that orchestrated systems of domain-specific models can outperform frontier generalists in their native deployment environments. These results are contextualized within a formal evolutionary taxonomy of generative AI spanning five eras (1943-present), with analysis of frontier lab dynamics, sovereign AI emergence, and post-training alignment evolution from RLHF through GRPO. The Institutional Scaling Law predicts that the next phase transition will be driven not by larger models but by better-orchestrated systems of domain-specific models adapted to specific institutional niches.

Mark Baciak, Thomas A. Cellucci

Ekta Inc.

Trustworthy AILanguage Model Scaling LawsTrust in AIResponsible AI
AskPDF