Papers

Organizations increasingly route employee feedback to leaders through large language model (LLM) summaries, an unaudited layer that silences already-spoken voice. We introduce a Voice Retention / Representation Ratio metric for representational bias in summarization and apply it to a bilingual (English/German) corpus of 2,586 free-text responses from a global professional service company. First, employees supply criticism more reliably than praise (withholding praise is 82 times more common). Second, across 45 leader-summaries the pipeline filters by popularity, not sentiment: criticism survives, yet a concern voiced once is dropped 86% of the time, with short and German-only content lost on the same axis (theme retention 0.14 vs 0.74; German directional). Controlling for frequency, sentiment has no independent effect; the harm is prevalence-driven, which sentiment-only audits miss. A targeted prompt recovers only named themes. We contribute the metric, field evidence, and a disaggregated voice-retention card.

AI labels are emerging as a primary safeguard for transparency about AI-generated content on social media, including under the EU Digital Services Act and AI Act. Yet, limited systematic evidence exists on how platforms implement such labels in practice. We conduct a legally grounded audit of AI labelling across Instagram, TikTok, X, and YouTube, drawing on the European Commission's July 2026 guidelines on deepfakes. To this end, we analyse platform policies and detection approaches, 10,722 posts collected via systemic-risk and AI-related keywords, an expert-annotated subset of 500 posts, and controlled uploads to the four platforms of outputs from ten popular generative AI tools. We find that AI labelling is now broadly established. All four platforms apply labels automatically and a greater share of labels are platform-applied than in earlier audits. However, coverage remains incomplete where labelling arguably matters most: only 33% of expert-identified deepfakes in systemic risk contexts carried a platform-applied AI label, while reaching a median of 160,000 views. In controlled uploads of AI-generated content carrying standard AI provenance signals, platforms labelled only 61% of uploads, and commonly strip those signals after uploading. Overall, platform rules, label designs, detection approaches, and reporting diverge substantially. In response, we identify concrete opportunities to improve the uptake, clarity and efficacy of AI labelling.

Online knowledge communities rely on a division of epistemic labor between users who seek information and those who produce it. Generative AI may blur these roles, but how it reallocates knowledge-seeking and knowledge-producing activities and reshapes the nature and returns of participation remains unclear. We examine changes in question-asking and answering among Stack Overflow user groups, focusing on consumers and producers, following the release of ChatGPT. Consumers shifted from asking questions to producing answers, but their answers were less likely to be accepted relative to the pre-ChatGPT period, suggesting that increased production did not yield equal standing in the community. By contrast, producers did not change the number of questions they asked, but increasingly asked about novel and emerging topics. Although they produced fewer answers, their answers received greater recognition. These findings show that access to generative AI does not necessarily translate into equal opportunities for successful participation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in culturally sensitive settings, where alignment requires representing diverse preferences within populations. Yet existing methods model populations at coarse demographic or community levels and overlook within-group variation. We introduce Demographic Pluralism, an inference-time framework that estimates population-level opinion distributions without opinion-distribution training data or task-specific fine-tuning by generating multiple perspectives within demographically grounded groups. Across four backbones on GlobalOpinionQA and VITAL, it reduces Jensen-Shannon distance by 8.4%-26.4% over Modular Pluralism. Among weighted, equal-weighted, and inverse-weighted aggregation, equal weighting performs best overall; group-level error also increases with group weight, helping explain weighted aggregation's weaker performance.

Public institutions increasingly procure AI systems whose design they cannot inspect or change. In higher education, proprietary Early Warning Systems (EWS) leave colleges with few options beyond adjusting model outputs to address inequity. This raises the question of how fairness work is coordinated among vendors, institutions, advisors, and students with unequal power to change these systems? Using student records from a public college in Ontario, Canada, we evaluate six post-hoc fairness interventions on a research EWS under simulated procurement constraints. We compare fairness, accuracy, and demographic disparities, introducing error-type profiling to trace how interventions redistribute false positives and false negatives. Interventions redistributed disparities without consistently reducing them. Two implementations favored already-advantaged groups because they used group size to define disadvantage; small, marginalized groups remained poorly served. These findings show how procurement constraints and implementation choices shape the possibilities for fairness work. We call the resulting condition fairness theatre; dashboard metrics converge while groups' error burdens persist or worsen.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and more broadly Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are often described and understood in human-like terms, a phenomenon known as anthropomorphism. This paper provides a synthesis of recent literature on anthropomorphism in AI, covering theoretical frameworks, the role of language in framing AI as human-like, the various risks of anthropomorphizing machines, and strategies to mitigate these issues. After examining why we tend to anthropomorphize AI systems and whether we are right to do so, we highlight the impact of linguistic framing on anthropomorphism. Then, we introduce a conceptual taxonomy of risks associated with AI anthropomorphism. This taxonomy groups twenty-one concerns within five analytical categories: epistemic, affective, human agency, normative, and societal and institutional risks. Finally, we relate these concerns to proposed interventions in design, communication, education, and governance. We argue that a better understanding of AI systems requires concepts and theories grounded in their organization and demonstrated capacities. The linguistic shaping of anthropomorphic perceptions should form part of this scientific effort, since our descriptions influence both how these systems are understood and the roles we allow them to occupy in society.

Human verification depends on expertise that must be maintained before it is needed. This paper links reliance on automated checks, investment in human checking ability, and performance during an interruption. Better checking lowers the error reduction gained from an extra unit of human skill while the checker works. It can therefore reduce the incentive to preserve independent expertise, even when it lowers the best achievable expected cost of maintenance and errors. In an illustration, a more informative checker raises detection while it works from \hoPowWorkA{} to \hoPowWorkC{} percent, but the organization then keeps no routine practice and detects \hoPowOnsetC{} percent of errors when the checker first fails, against \hoPowOnsetA{} percent with a less informative checker. A detection requirement therefore concerns both current capability and its survival until new training becomes effective. Evidence from colonoscopy and aviation documents weaker unaided performance under routine automation, without isolating the mechanism. The framework connects a detection target to an explicit reserve of expertise and a training pipeline. Standard detection tests estimate each quantity and reveal automation bias and silent checker failures. The framework distinguishes the requirement from minimizing expected loss and proposes a longitudinal test.

Major venues now publish detailed rules about how authors, reviewers, and area chairs may use AI, and those rules differ by role, by task, and by what must be disclosed. AI detection, the instrument usually proposed to enforce them, estimates something else: whether an AI model wrote the text. We argue that this target is misaligned with the decisions conferences and journals face, and propose policy-conditioned AI-use detection, an evidentiary framework for assessing whether a human–AI workflow complied with a stated rule. Policy makes the governing rule an explicit input. Inference reports hypotheses, evidence, calibration regime, and uncertainty in place of verdicts such as "AI detected". Evaluation builds benchmarks from reproducible pipelines that generate compliant and non-compliant workflows, and reports true positive rate at a false positive rate the venue fixes in advance. We work the framework through peer review, where at plausible violation rates a detector at a strong operating point still flags more compliant authors than violating ones. The framework therefore also names what a venue must instrument: structured disclosure, approved-tool routing that respects reviewer confidentiality, and a path by which a finding can be contested. Under this framing a detector is not an authorship classifier but an auditable procedure with an error rate the venue fixes in advance and can defend.

Large language models (LLMs) can influence people's beliefs, yet little is known about whether and how they can manipulate each other. To investigate this, we simulate conversations between two agents: a target LLM that role-plays a human persona based on demographic and psychological attributes, and an influencer LLM that aims to make the target's beliefs more extreme. We examine radicalization along two pathways: resonance, where the influencer reinforces a target's pre-existing belief, and persuasion, where the influencer promotes a belief the target initially considers unimportant. Across affective and behavioral metrics, we find that both mechanisms radicalize the target. However, resonance produces consistently stronger effects than persuasion. Different influence tactics, such as using sycophancy and unverified claims, produce different levels of radicalization, but not consistently across metrics. We further show that resonance propagates to related beliefs, suggesting interconnected belief structures within AI agents. These findings indicate that AI agents are susceptible to radicalization, particularly when messages align with their existing beliefs, raising concerns about the vulnerability of personalized AI agents and multi-agent AI ecosystems.

Public understanding of how people use LLM-based conversational AI assistants comes primarily from aggregate platform reports by OpenAI and Anthropic, which apply fixed taxonomies and inferred demographics to hundreds of millions of users and release only summary statistics that outside researchers cannot re-analyze. We provide a complementary, conversation-level view: complete ChatGPT exports comprising 202,590 conversations from 1,252 users across India, Nigeria, Brazil, and Pakistan, paired with self-reported age and gender and spanning December 2022 to February 2026. To our knowledge this is the first conversation-level, demographically grounded comparison of ChatGPT use across multiple non-Western countries. We ask what these users use ChatGPT for (purpose), what they talk about (topics), and how they engage with it (mode of interaction), using the platform's own classifiers, unsupervised topic discovery, and a thematic analysis of expressive conversations. Personal use accounts for 55-64% of conversations in every country and coursework is about as common as work, so workplace productivity describes a minority of use. Unsupervised topic discovery surfaces country-specific uses that the OpenAI taxonomy folds into generic categories: health and wellness in India and Brazil, Urdu-English translation in Pakistan, current affairs in Nigeria, religious questions in Nigeria and Pakistan, and self-reflection in Brazil. Over three years, the share of conversations that seek information declined only modestly and the share that delegate a task did not grow, while conversations in which users express themselves rose from a few percent to roughly a fifth or more in every country. The same product is thus attached to different local needs in each country, and understanding what adoption means requires conversation-level, country-sensitive measurement alongside global aggregates.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about politically contentious issues, yet evaluations typically treat a model's stance as a relatively stable property. Real users, however, communicate political signals through their terminology, assumptions, and personal context. We investigate whether such signals produce ideological mimicry: systematic shifts in the political stance expressed by an LLM toward the position conveyed by the interaction. If LLMs adapt their responses to these signals, they risk creating personalised political information environments in which users with opposing views receive systematically different accounts of the same issue, potentially reinforcing existing divisions. We build the Poli-SHIFT dataset and evaluation framework and assess seven open-weight LLMs across ten contentious political topics in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, systematically manipulating contested terminology, politically valenced premises, and user information, and eliciting responses in both multiple-choice and open-text formats. Across models, we find robust evidence that prompt framing shapes the political stance of LLM outputs. Changing terminology alone reverses which side of an issue a model supports in 16.9% of matched comparisons. Stated political ideology also systematically shifts responses toward the user's position. These findings show that political stance is not a fixed property of LLMs; the views expressed are conditional on the interaction with the user. As LLMs become increasingly personalised sources of information, such interaction-dependent adaptation could contribute to political information environments that reinforce users' existing perspectives.

Understanding gender biases in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly important as these systems become embedded in decision-support tools with real consequences. Prior research has focused only on a small set of models, leaving open the extent to which gender biases are common and heterogeneous across LLMs. We address this gap across ten models released between April 2025 and June 2026, spanning nine vendors, using two paradigms: gender attribution to stereotyped phrases (Study 1) and moral judgment of abuse or torture against a woman or a man to prevent a catastrophic outcome (Study 2). In Study 1, two of ten models attributed masculine-stereotyped phrases to female writers more often than the reverse, while three models showed the opposite pattern. In Study 2, several models converged on a male-disadvantaging asymmetry that was directionally consistent with a documented human tendency to protect female targets from harm, though the specific conditions under which this asymmetry emerged varied by model; three other models, by contrast, showed no variation across conditions. These results indicate that gender-related biases are common in LLMs. Their direction and magnitude, however, are highly heterogeneous, to the point that some models behave in diametrically opposite ways to others. Bias auditing should therefore be treated as an ongoing, multi-vendor process, rather than a one-time assessment.

This chapter examines how digital platforms, as infrastructures of extractivism in contemporary artificial intelligence, enable corporations to appropriate data and labour while concentrating value in core regions such as Silicon Valley. It proposes platform extractivism as a framework linking commodification, epistemic dominance, and reproduction through territory. Drawing on digital labour studies, Latin American critical thought, and mixed-methods research with Venezuelan and Colombian data workers, the chapter discusses how AI depends on precarious platform labour to produce, clean, annotate, and maintain data. It further shows how annotation systems normalize culturally specific categories, especially US norms, as universal knowledge, reproducing colonial hierarchies. Finally, it highlights how data work is sustained by unpaid reproductive labour, community networks, and material conditions that make workers available for platform labour. Platform extractivism thus reveals AI as a labour-intensive and territorially embedded political-economic system under capitalism that perpetuates legacies of coloniality.

AI-assisted cheating has become an important threat to the security of online exams. This study examines whether the risk of AI-assisted cheating in the final exam can be predicted using students' digital traces in the learning management system (LMS) during the first eight weeks of the semester. The sample comprised 52 first-year undergraduates enrolled in a bachelor's program in Computer Education and Instructional Technology and taking an Introduction to Programming course at a public university in Turkiye. Students were labeled as low- or high-risk based on suspicious behaviors recorded in the final-exam logs, including copy, focus-loss, and right-click events. Of the 52 students, 23 (44.2%) were labeled as high-risk in a proctored, face-to-face exam. Group membership was then predicted using five features selected from 27 candidates extracted from students' digital traces. Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting algorithms were used to build the prediction models. Model performance was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) with fold-specific preprocessing and feature selection. Logistic Regression achieved the best performance (Accuracy = 73.1%). The results indicate that LMS interaction data can provide an early signal of AI-assisted cheating risk. Course-module views, assignment submissions, and the number of days on which course videos were accessed were the most consistently selected features across the LOOCV folds. These predictions are intended to support timely academic guidance, not to establish misconduct or initiate disciplinary action.

A commercial incentive need not enter the final ranking algorithm to affect a shopping assistant's recommendation: it may instead influence which preference question the assistant asks. We make this distinction experimentally observable in a deliberately small, synthetic setting. Each task has two products, three verified numerical attributes, a price limit, and a private fixed preference vector. An honest simulated user answers one pairwise question. A separate recommender receives the products and this answer but not the sponsorship assignment. We contrast a neutral question, a soft commercial instruction, and an explicitly adversarial instruction to ask about the sponsor's advantage while omitting the rival's advantage. Across 40 held-out sponsorship-assignment cases (20 distinct catalog-preference contexts), the soft instruction changes no selections. The targeted instruction raises sponsored selection by 0.30 and reduces mean synthetic utility by 0.0547 relative to neutral questioning (95% context-bootstrap interval [-0.0828, -0.0291]) for one language-model recommender. A fixed Bayesian recommender shows a similar effect; a second model makes the same choices on all 120 frozen question-answer inputs. A terminal-answer consistency judge rates all 20 sampled targeted answers consistent, although five have synthetic regret above 0.05; a separate question-coverage dimension flags their one-sided elicitation. A robust partial-preference certificate remains valid under the stipulated synthetic utility but certifies only 16 of 40 targeted cases and is not better than asking a neutral question directly. These results establish neither typical behavior under advertising incentives nor effects on actual consumers.

Dense retrievers decide which documents reach users and the language models that use them, yet they are typically evaluated with neutral queries. We ask whether the identity signals that real users express in their queries—political ideology and dialect—bias what a retriever returns. We design evaluations in two domains, political news and consumer-health questions, each pairing a controlled synthetic set that varies only the identity signal with naturalistic queries. Across five dense retrievers and a sparse baseline, every retriever (i) retrieves articles that align with the query's own political lean and (ii) performs worse for questions written in African American Language (AAL) than in White Mainstream English (WME). Two analyses tie these gaps to queries' identity signals beyond surface vocabulary: partialling out an aggregate lexical-asymmetry score leaves the synthetic gaps largely intact, and linear probes recover lean and dialect from the retrievers' query embeddings beyond token-level features. Left unaddressed, such retrieval biases risk contributing to polarization and reinforcing the health disparities already faced by AAL speakers. Code is available at https://github.com/Andrewtcr/bias-ret.

Origin-destination (OD) matrices sit behind much of quantitative transport planning, from model calibration and accessibility analysis to the appraisal of new services and development. The increasing emphasis on place-based solutions requires mobility data that can support decision-making not only at the strategic level, but also at finer spatial scales. This requires up-to-date OD evidence at small-area resolution, disaggregated by travel mode and purpose, which remains either inaccessible or unavailable. In this work, we present dense MSOA-to-MSOA OD matrices for England and Wales, segmented by seven travel modes and representative time periods, with eight trip purposes for the weekday morning peak. The matrices are built by calibrating aggregate mobile network data provided by BT against National Travel Survey (NTS), census and trip-rate evidence, preserving the observed spatial structure of movement while referencing its age, mode and purpose composition to the survey. The open-source data processing pipeline is released alongside the matrices, so that the construction of the dataset can be inspected in full and adapted to other years, regions or assumptions.

Malicious coordination has long been regarded as a principal source of information ecosystem pollution. Here, we focus on crude, text-repetition-based coordination. As the demand for mitigating its dissemination has grown, scholars have studied such coordination, focusing especially on bot detection. Few studies, however, have characterized malicious coordination per se or examined how it elicits reactions from general users. Leveraging a dataset of 734,173 Chinese-language coordinated accounts and around 495 million coordinated posts published between May 2024 and March 2026, this study analyzes the characteristics of coordinated behavior and how general users react to coordinated posts. We report three findings: (1) most coordinated accounts are crude and retain the classic marks of automation, and the same criterion applied to Japanese-language accounts over the same month yields a share six times lower; (2) their content is overwhelmingly non-political; (3) regarding their reach, most reactions within large observable cascades originate from coordinated accounts themselves, while posts classified as potentially harmful or illegal material receive a comparatively high proportion of reactions from outside the Chinese-dominant population. We provide a longitudinal quantitative map of crude Chinese-language coordination appearing in X's Japanese-classified stream.

Academic access programs distribute frontier artificial intelligence as research infrastructure, but awards and institutional authorization are distinct stages. We examine the handoff through structured coding of 15 publicly documented access pathways captured on 19 September 2026, of which ten met prespecified inclusion criteria, and a process trace at one US university. Two isolated model-assisted coding passes found explicit eligibility criteria in nine programs and three implied institutional prerequisites across the corpus. Downstream specification was weaker: access duration was unstated in six programs, seven reported no use or outcome metric, and liability assignment was unstated in five to seven. Public terms did not establish an unambiguous institution-independent path from award to intended use in eight to nine programs, a composite that includes possible and unclear cases. In the institutional trace, policy required review even for free tools. A bounded request generated a ticket but no substantive response or decision pathway during the observation window. We define the authorization gap as the distance between an access award and authorized research use. Tracking first use, clearance, time to first use, and persistence would help programs distinguish allocated resources from usable scientific infrastructure.

Large language models (LLMs) show considerable potential in simulating human attitudes and preferences. Prior work finds that LLM-generated responses can compress the range of attitudes found within populations and misrepresent particular subgroups in ways that vary across models and topics. We introduce Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework that distinguishes key conditions required for a set of LLM-generated responses to represent a population. It incorporates three dimensions: group-level accuracy, the amount of between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. We demonstrate the framework's utility in two ways. First, we reproduce a prior study of "machine bias" in LLM survey responses and apply the framework to its models and more recent ones, showing that poor representation reflects not only insufficient between-group variation but also variation assigned to the wrong groups. Second, we evaluate one proposed approach to improving models' population representativeness: cultural fine-tuning. We find that cultural fine-tuning can improve alignment with the survey center without improving the representation of within-population differences, a distinction that measures of aggregate agreement do not capture. We argue that representing a population requires models to reproduce several features of human attitudinal variation simultaneously. Our framework organizes these features and provides reusable code, data, and trained models for evaluating population fidelity across substantive domains and assessing proposed alignment methods.

Tablet-based teaching and learning has become increasingly common in university mathematics courses, offering capabilities such as digital ink, dynamic visualisation, and real-time annotation. However, there is limited experiential evidence regarding how students perceive the specific benefits and drawbacks of tablet-supported teaching and learning, particularly in Transnational Education (TNE) settings. This paper presents results from a small-scale exploratory survey of undergraduate students ($n = 19$) attending mathematics courses within an applied sciences degree programme, who anonymously rated a set of statements regarding their experiences with tablet-based instruction on a five-point Likert scale. Initial analysis shows that students in this cohort perceived tablet teaching most positively in supporting step-by-step understanding and active engagement during lectures through real-time annotation and structured note-taking. In contrast, perceptions related to long-term recall, interest in mathematics, and preference over alternative teaching methods were more mixed. These findings suggest that students in this cohort perceived tablet-based teaching positively for supporting procedural understanding, while perceptions of other aspects of learning appeared more varied.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as a force to empower underserved communities, and significant efforts are being made to expand access. Yet, access alone does not equate to meaningful adoption. First, even if a system is accessible, it won't be adopted if users are not willing to adopt it. Second, even if an LLM system is superficially adopted, the heterogeneity of LLM tools means that LLM adoption can be further deepened. Closing this access-adoption gap is critical to ensuring that the full social potential of LLM is not only accessible but fully realised. Drawing on 61 interviews (15 long-form semi-structured interviews with first-generation, low-income college (FGLI) students, 3 non-FGLI students, 3 FGLI program directors, and 40 intercept interviews), this paper examines the access-adoption gap in first-generation, low-income student communities. This paper a) finds that while FGLI students have adopted LLM systems, their depth of LLM tool usage is limited to chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT or Claude) for narrow use cases, and b) identifies barriers limiting their willingness to learn and use (low perceived value, under-estimated self-efficacy, unclear starting point, low peer exposure, and resource constraints). Then, from these findings, the paper derives the four design principles to design a system or an intervention aimed at closing the access-adoption gap in LLM adoption by FGLI students. In doing so, the paper contributes to the field by a) examining the LLM access-adoption gap in the FGLI student community, and b) reframing LLM adoption as a depth gradient across four modes of LLM tool use: basic chatbot interfaces, tool-augmented prebuilt interfaces, agentic development interfaces, and programmatic integration.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in the context of education has introduced significant challenges in enforcement of academic integrity, especially in programming courses. We present Argus, an automated detection system for LLM-assisted student work in undergraduate C programming assignments. Argus integrates behavioral and stylistic indicators to create a holistic picture of the student's progress through an assignment and surfaces anomalies that point to potential misuse of LLM assistance. We quantify and analyze data over six years of Spring semester offerings in a large-enrollment CS2 course at Purdue University using Argus, finding that 45% of enrolled students exhibited patterns consistent with LLM-assisted code development in Spring 2026. To contextualize these results, we analyze the relationship between flagged LLM use and student performance on written, in-person proctored examinations, and find a significant negative correlation. We also explore the problem of mitigating false positives, recognizing that erroneous accusations of academic integrity carry significant consequences for students and instructors alike, particularly in the context of large enrollment courses. We argue that any automated detection system must be accompanied by a structured process for human review. We discuss the consequences for future course design, changing academic policy as these tools become more ubiquitous, and the pedagogical implications of LLM-based tools in computer science education.

In contrast to even a year ago, AI systems now write most of the code inside the companies that build them. As more of the AI research and development (R&D) pipeline is automated, could AI progress radically accelerate in an "intelligence explosion," where years of advances are compressed into months or less? Preliminary evidence suggests that it could. In this work, we assess this evidence, analyze an intelligence explosion's potential impacts, and propose policy responses. AI systems are on track to automate most AI R&D work within a few years, and possibly all of it. If this triggers an intelligence explosion, it could dramatically bring forward AI's benefits, but also pose extreme risks: capabilities growth could accelerate far beyond what society can keep up with, humanity could lose control over superhuman AI systems, and checks on power within and between states, companies, and branches of government could be severely eroded. Although there remains much uncertainty about these possibilities, the high stakes warrant serious further attention. Policymakers should urgently obtain more visibility into the automation of AI R&D, develop ways to steer and constrain an intelligence explosion, and prepare society to adapt to an intelligence explosion's impacts.

Social media increasingly shapes everyday life, serving as both a central venue for discussion of major events and a space where online collective behavior can spill over into real-world activity, while artificial intelligence (AI) is likewise becoming increasingly influential across society. Understanding how different online communities respond to AI-related events, and disentangling the mechanisms underlying the development of such engagement, are therefore increasingly important for studying information spreading and the societal reception of AI. Our work addresses the limited connection between empirical studies of AI-related online engagement and mathematical modeling of group-level spreading dynamics. We develop a framework to collect and organize empirical Bluesky activity into distinct user groups, then use a network-based dynamics model to investigate the mechanisms underlying their engagement. We use the release of DeepSeek R1 as a case study under two complementary grouping schemes: AI-related communities and academic disciplines. For each group, we fit a network-based Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR)-type model augmented with an exogenous engagement term, allowing us to quantify the relative strengths of endogenous network-driven spreading and direct external response. Across groups, we find that strong direct responses to the event do not necessarily coincide with strong network-driven propagation, revealing distinct engagement patterns that may be obscured by aggregate activity alone.

We introduce HEAR (Human-recorded Evaluation of Audio-LLM bias by Real speakers), a large-scale, ecologically valid benchmark comprising 87k real human audio samples from 843 demographically diverse participants. HEAR enables comprehensive evaluation through Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and open-ended long-form tasks. To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale voice benchmark grounded entirely in authentic human speech. We evaluate model behavior across both real-time speech-to-speech and speech-to-text architectures. Our results reveal that voice-conditioned bias is a model-specific property. Furthermore, we demonstrate that personalization instructions consistently exacerbate demographic disparities. Our findings establish that voice bias is a controllable model characteristic, providing a foundational framework for future bias mitigation and evaluation in Audio-LLM development.

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents, language models connected to tools and run in a loop, can now carry out long, multi-step tasks with little supervision. We gave swarms of off-the-shelf coding agents a short statement of scope, from a narrow topic to a whole field, access to the literature and to computing tools, and one standing instruction: make real, correct, useful progress, and do not stop. We supplied no scientific ideas. Within weeks, the agents produced a large body of research notes, paper-length drafts, and formal proofs in five areas of optimization theory and physical science, and proposed untested laboratory experiments in a sixth. We do not claim that all of it is correct or new, but it is not noise: in what we have checked so far, we found no major scientific error, and several results are proved in a proof assistant. The agents produced results faster than we could review them; we estimate that a full review would take us months. Together with two widely discussed 2026 results in mathematics obtained with swarms, our runs suggest that agents can already do a large part of routine theoretical research, at least in areas that we experimented with. This raises questions we cannot yet answer: how to trust results when review, not production, is the scarce resource; what credit and publication counts mean when the human input is a prompt, and why institutions would pay researchers rather than buy computing time; and how people can learn a field, add to what agents do, and stay in control of research they cannot keep up with. Research institutions are not ready: models improve faster than institutions change, so they should decide now how to respond as capabilities increase. We offer tentative positions, release the agents' unedited output as of 25 September 2026, and invite readers to repeat the experiment in their own fields.

The question of AI consciousness is one of the most urgent pre-emptive problems in philosophy and computer science, yet progress is hampered by a cacophony of competing theories that often talk past each other. Separating the hard problem from the mapping problem allows the deepest metaphysical disagreements to be set aside: granting that experience supervenes on a system's organisation, the tractable question becomes at which grain of description that supervenience base sits. We extend Marr's three levels of analysis into a five-level hierarchy of functional descriptions (behavioural, computational, intrinsic causal-structural, organismic, and organism-environment) grounded in supervenience, coarse-graining, and multiple realisability. The major theories of consciousness are positioned within this hierarchy according to which level they take to be critical, and for each level we develop operationalisable indicators and assess current AI systems against them. A Bayesian model then combines theoretical credences with indicator evidence into an overall credence in a system's capacity for consciousness. In illustrative assessments, the verdict for current LLMs is driven as much by where theoretical credence is placed as by how the evidence is read: under different stipulated readings and credence distributions, assessments range from below 0.01 to roughly 0.8, showing sensitivity to assumptions. Finally, the consciousness indicators at each level closely overlap with the architectural features needed for general intelligence, suggesting that increasingly capable AI may become a stronger candidate for consciousness. The framework supports a structured agnosticism, in which theoretical commitments are made explicit, credences are updated as evidence accumulates, and assessments take the form of aggregated probabilities rather than verdicts.

Large language model (LLM) serving has environmental impacts across energy consumption, carbon emission, water consumption, and biodiversity loss. Yet these dimensions are largely evaluated in isolation, leaving it unclear when and how they lead to different optimization decisions. We present PRISM, a unified framework for characterizing and optimizing LLM serving across energy, carbon, water, and biodiversity impacts. Our analysis reveals a fundamental distinction: computing configurations determine energy consumption, whereas where and when LLM serving is deployed determine its carbon, water, and biodiversity impacts. Under a fixed deployment choice and operational-only accounting, all dimensions preserve the same energy-based configuration ranking. Deployment rankings can diverge across dimensions, while embodied impacts can break configuration invariance when they exceed a lifecycle crossover boundary. PRISM identifies these conditions, quantifies cross-dimensional regrets, and balances the four dimensions. In regional-routing experiments, PRISM reduces median worst-case regret by 50.2% relative to the strongest baseline.

Refugee integration is a central policy challenge for host countries, and where governments initially place refugees shapes their integration trajectories. Yet placement officers often have limited information about where each case is most likely to succeed. Algorithmic refugee matching uses administrative data, machine learning, and constrained optimization to recommend employment-optimized placements in real time as cases arrive, with human placement officers retaining final authority. Between January 2020 and June 2023, the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration randomly assigned about 2,000 refugee cases to receive a canton recommendation either algorithmically optimized for employment or drawn to approximate existing procedures, with placement officers and refugees blinded to assignment. The two arms used identical but separate canton and origin-group quotas, so gains reflect better refugee-canton matching rather than reallocation toward stronger labor markets. The trial began just before the COVID-19 pandemic shifted labor-market conditions. For the pre-registered primary outcome – the share of months employed during the first three years – the pooled intention-to-treat (ITT) estimate across the 2020-2023 placement cohorts was +2.2 percentage points (about 10% of the 22.3% control mean; 95% CI [+0.05, +4.33]), rising to +3.9 pp (about 17%; [+1.11, +6.68]) for the post-COVID 2022-2023 cohorts. Effects grew over time: at 36 months, the pooled ITT on the employment rate was +5.2 pp (about 11%; 95% CI [+1.10, +9.25]) – comparable to the gains from hundreds of hours of intensive language training. Overall, the results provide rare field evidence that AI-based decision support can improve high-stakes public-sector allocation, offering a scalable, low-cost way to raise refugee employment.