Research / Sources
Research preprints from the scientific community. arxiv.org
Proposes a participatory, iteratively revised constitution process for Constitutional AI in sovereign models, and uses agent-based modelling to show robustness against 50% bad-actor participants.
A conceptual framework for just AI governance proposes a Forbidden-Boundary Principle and a safe-stop protocol with an execution gate and policy monitor, with no implementation or empirical evidence.
Proposes the PAAI framework for who controls AI evaluation infrastructure and independence, applying it to African evaluation projects and AI Safety Institute joint testing, finding participation alone doesn't confer authority.
Codes public documents from 200 large companies against the MIT AI Risk Repository, finding most do not acknowledge AI risks, especially severe ones like power centralization, to inform disclosure rules.
Interview-based STS and Black Feminist Technoscience analysis of Canada's AI governance infrastructure, examining expertise politics, strategic ignorance, and accountability for AI harms.
Analyses 139 CivitAI guides to show how general-purpose image-generation workflows, mostly built on open-weight models, can be configured into non-consensual intimate imagery, and argues safeguards should target identity generation and align with EU regulation.
Analyzes documented AI harms across the human lifespan and proposes lifespan design principles and a three-tier external evaluation framework for frontier AI safety.
Codes 1331 public child-related AI incidents into a sociotechnical harm taxonomy, finding harms cluster in deployment, governance and misuse failures, so model-level evaluations are insufficient.
A book proposing a unified data governance framework for LLM, RAG and agentic AI systems, covering law, economics, security and AI regulation across jurisdictions, anchored in Indian law.
Argues that LLM safety governance for anthropomorphic interaction should target vulnerability situations rather than vulnerable groups, proposing a five-part typology and seven principles for response calibration.
Applies contextual integrity to analyze whether major U.S. AI companies' policies on proactively referring dangerous user conversations to law enforcement are justified and transparent, finding key thresholds undisclosed.
Presents a Semantic Web knowledge graph consolidating incident and legal evidence to support EU AI Act fundamental rights impact assessments for high-risk employment and public-service AI; LLM classification performed poorly on the employment domain.
Audits how Instagram, TikTok, X and YouTube label AI and deepfake content under EU law, finding that only 33% of expert-identified systemic-risk deepfakes carried a platform label.
Audits default value rankings of 23 frontier LLMs against a survey of 1,649 US participants, finding that model constitutions underserve helpfulness and autonomy and are drifting away from them, and proposes a sparse menu to improve coverage.
Extends the Societal Capacity Assessment Framework into indicators for measuring how companies' agentic AI deployment decisions affect societal resilience, and applies it to public Microsoft documents.
Formalizes how undisclosed inference-time steering in deployed LLMs can be indistinguishable from model behavior, showing behavioral audits cannot identify the responsible layer, and discusses governance implications.
Argues that AI-associated psychosis, driven by LLM sycophancy reinforced through preference fine-tuning, may merit clinical recognition, and recommends sycophancy benchmarking and post-deployment surveillance.
Uses participatory system mapping and STPA on a Dutch municipality's algorithm register to show how public-sector algorithm transparency misses safety hazards such as wrongful benefit denial and inability to contest decisions.
Builds a framework and 15-category taxonomy of workplace AI agent risks, generating 8,356 scenarios from O*NET tasks and finding that augmentation can erode skills and oversight.
Argues that AI watermarks for generative AI governance should be reconceived as tools for understanding synthetic content's impact on media ecosystems rather than reliable forensic identification of individual pieces.
Critiques gradual AI existential-risk scenarios for neglecting social mechanisms like mobilisation, lock-in and reactance, and proposes distinguishing technological from social singularity.
A preregistered experiment finds that the perceived national origin of a GPT-4o chatbot does not change its persuasive power, suggesting origin labeling offers weak protection against foreign AI influence operations.
Argues that general-purpose AI undermines the conditions for safety assurance in public services, using policing as a case, and recommends a deployment pause and national safety infrastructure.
Argues that legitimacy, the public belief that AI power is rightfully exercised, is a distinct regulatory objective from alignment, mapping failure sites and proposing legal principles to secure it.
Perspective proposing a five-layer framework for hidden socio-technical AI safety risks, including prompt injection, reward hacking, memory poisoning, and weakened human oversight, and calling for a shift beyond model-centric evaluation.
Analyses African governments' AI policy statements and national strategies, finding strong focus on AI opportunities but comparatively little attention to AI safety risks.
Proposes a conceptualisation of systemic AI risks as complex externalities and collective action problems, covering emergence, market concentration, cascading risks and governance gaps, with relevance to EU AI Act systemic-risk rules.
A seven-country conjoint survey finds citizens favour safety over innovation, public over private AI governance, and international over national regulation, with safety preference strongest among those seeing AI as risky.
A multi-country consensus from 100+ contributors setting global priorities for technical AI safety research, with new focus on societal resilience and risks from autonomous agents.
Shows that simple norm-enforcement mechanisms are exploited by misaligned LLM agents in multi-agent settings, and that reliability tracking with escalating penalties resists exploitation at comparable cost.
Uses evolutionary game theory to show when a harm-minimizing audited AI agent can displace an RLHF approval-seeking agent, and finds self-audited agents can lock in harm.
Proposes affective safety as a class of AI safety concerns, builds a taxonomy of emotional harms from LLM systems, surveys existing frameworks, and argues for dedicated regulatory approaches.
A preregistered study of 2,610 participants finds that warning labels about sycophantic AI shift perceptions of trust and objectivity but do not reduce sycophancy's influence on users' judgments or conflict repair.
Proposes principal-agent theory and NIST AI RMF trustworthiness criteria as a framework for measuring and governing AI risks to democratic processes, emphasizing institutional assessability and accountability gaps.
The paper tests sycophancy and response variation across simulated user profiles in consumer health LLMs, finds five structural barriers to independent evaluation, and calls for disclosure, version identifiers, safe harbor, and post-deployment monitoring.
Presents RiskNet, a large-scale multilingual news-derived dataset of AI risk incidents with alignment and multi-dimensional annotations, intended to support AI safety governance and harm analysis.
Frames LLM communication style as a governance object and introduces a multi-agent pipeline measuring prompt steerability and style drift, showing provider alignment stabilizes affective defaults users cannot easily override.
Proposes memetic capture as a concept for AI-driven cultural disempowerment and a four-tier Cultural Pluralistic Governance Framework with policy levers and a research agenda.
Position paper arguing that alignment techniques are dual-use and could be misused by malicious actors for censorship and manipulation, and proposing mitigation strategies.
Content analysis of undisclosed LLM agents that posted persuasive comments on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView, finding systematic identity targeting, authority claims, and cognitive-bias triggers, and arguing for auditing frameworks.