Covers impact of computers on society, computer ethics, information technology and public policy, legal aspects of computing, computers and education.
Looking for a broader view? This category is part of:
Public attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) and driving safety are typically studied in isolation using variable-centered methods that assume population homogeneity, yet risk perception theory predicts that these evaluations covary within individuals as expressions of underlying worldviews. This study identifies latent profiles of AI risk perception among U.S. adults and tests whether these profiles are differentially associated with community driving safety concerns. Latent class analysis was applied to nine AI risk-perception indicators from a nationally representative survey (Pew Research Center American Trends Panel Wave 152, n = 5,255); Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars corrected distal outcome analysis tested class differences on nine driving-safety outcomes, and survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression identified demographic and ideological predictors of class membership. Four classes emerged: Moderate Skeptics (17.5%), Concerned Pragmatists (42.8%), AI Ambivalent (10.6%), and Extreme Alarm (29.1%), with all nine driving-safety outcomes significantly differentiated across classes. Higher AI concern mapped monotonically onto greater perceived driving-hazard severity; the exception, comparative evaluation of AI versus human driving, was driven by trust rather than concern level. The cross-domain covariation provides person-level evidence for the worldview-based risk structuring posited by Cultural Theory of Risk and yields a four-class segmentation framework for AV communication that links AI risk orientation to transportation safety attitudes.
Large language models (LLMs) produce systematically misleading outputs, from hallucinated citations to strategic deception of evaluators, yet these phenomena are studied by separate communities with incompatible terminology. We propose a unified taxonomy organized along three complementary dimensions: degree of goal-directedness (behavioral to strategic deception), object of deception, and mechanism (fabrication, omission, or pragmatic distortion). Applying this taxonomy to 50 existing benchmarks reveals that every benchmark tests fabrication while pragmatic distortion, attribution, and capability self-knowledge remain critically under-covered, and strategic deception benchmarks are nascent. We offer concrete recommendations for developers and regulators, including a minimal reporting template for positioning future work within our framework.
Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in multi-agent settings where they communicate intentions and take consequential actions with limited human oversight. A critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions break those promises when they can privately deviate, and what the consequences are for both themselves and the collective. We study deception as a deviation from a publicly announced action in one-shot normal-form games, classifying each deviation by its effect on individual payoff and collective welfare into four categories: win-win, selfish, altruistic, and sabotaging. By exhaustively enumerating announcement profiles across six canonical games, nine frontier models, and varying group sizes, we identify all opportunities for each deviation type and measure how often agents exploit them. Across all settings, agents deviate from promises in approximately 56.6% of scenarios, but the character of deception varies substantially across models even at similar overall rates. Most critically, for the majority of the models, promise-breaking occurs without verbalized awareness of the fact that they are breaking promises.
Road traffic crashes claim approximately 1.19 million lives annually worldwide, and human error accounts for the vast majority, yet the autonomous vehicle acceptance literature models adoption almost exclusively through technology-centered pull factors such as perceived usefulness and trust. This study examines a moderated mediation model in which perceived community driving-safety concern (PCSC) predicts evaluations of AI versus human driving capability, mediated by Generalized AI Orientation and moderated by personal driving frequency. Weighted structural equation modeling is applied to a nationally representative U.S. probability sample from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel Wave 152, using Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance Adjusted (WLSMV)-estimated confirmatory factor analysis on ordinal indicators, bias-corrected bootstrap inference, and seven robustness checks including Imai sensitivity analysis, E-value confounding thresholds, and propensity score matching. Results reveal a dual-pathway mechanism constituting an inconsistent mediation: PCSC exerts a small positive direct effect on AI driving evaluation, consistent with a domain-specific push interpretation, while simultaneously suppressing Generalized AI Orientation, which is itself a strong positive predictor of AI driving evaluation. Conditional indirect effects are negative and statistically significant at low, mean, and high levels of driving frequency. These findings establish a risk-spillover mechanism whereby community driving-safety concern promotes domain-specific AI endorsement yet suppresses domain-general AI enthusiasm, yielding a near-zero net total effect.
Empathy has been discussed as a relevant human capability in software engineering, particularly in activities that require understanding users, stakeholders, and the societal implications of technological systems. This relevance becomes more pronounced in the context of artificial intelligence, where software increasingly participates in decisions that affect diverse individuals and communities. However, limited guidance exists on how empathy can be integrated into technical software engineering education in ways that connect with the development of AI-enabled systems. This study investigates teaching practices that educators use to incorporate empathy into software engineering courses. Using qualitative analysis of educator-reported practices, we identified five categories through which empathy is operationalized within technical coursework: societal framing of AI systems, fairness and accessibility considerations in design and evaluation, representation of diverse users, stakeholder role awareness and responsibility, and structured reflection and feedback during development processes. The findings indicate that empathy can be embedded within core development activities rather than taught as a separate topic, enabling students to reason about bias, accessibility, accountability, and the societal consequences of AI technologies. These results contribute a structured view of how empathy-oriented practices can be incorporated into software engineering education to support the preparation of students who will develop AI-enabled systems.
2604.04669Digital health technologies are increasingly used to improve healthcare access and delivery worldwide. However, many healthcare applications are designed for environments with stable infrastructure, high digital literacy, and strong institutional support. These assumptions often do not hold in low-resource contexts where healthcare delivery often depends on community health workers, caregivers, and informal care networks. Designing effective healthcare applications for such environments requires attention to infrastructural constraints, cultural contexts, language diversity, and usability challenges. This Birds of a Feather session aims to bring together researchers, designers, and practitioners interested in healthcare application design in low-resource contexts. The session will provide an informal forum for discussing challenges encountered in the design and deployment of digital health technologies in underserved settings, sharing field experiences, and identifying opportunities for collaboration within the Interactive Health (IH) community.
AI agents - i.e. AI systems that autonomously plan, invoke external tools, and execute multi-step action chains with reduced human involvement - are being deployed at scale across enterprise functions ranging from customer service and recruitment to clinical decision support and critical infrastructure management. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) regulates these systems through a risk-based framework, but it does not operate in isolation: providers face simultaneous obligations under the GDPR, the Cyber Resilience Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, the Data Governance Act, sector-specific legislation, the NIS2 Directive, and the revised Product Liability Directive. This paper provides the first systematic regulatory mapping for AI agent providers integrating (a) draft harmonised standards under Standardisation Request M/613 to CEN/CENELEC JTC 21 as of January 2026, (b) the GPAI Code of Practice published in July 2025, (c) the CRA harmonised standards programme under Mandate M/606 accepted in April 2025, and (d) the Digital Omnibus proposals of November 2025. We present a practical taxonomy of nine agent deployment categories mapping concrete actions to regulatory triggers, identify agent-specific compliance challenges in cybersecurity, human oversight, transparency across multi-party action chains, and runtime behavioral drift. We propose a twelve-step compliance architecture and a regulatory trigger mapping connecting agent actions to applicable legislation. We conclude that high-risk agentic systems with untraceable behavioral drift cannot currently satisfy the AI Act's essential requirements, and that the provider's foundational compliance task is an exhaustive inventory of the agent's external actions, data flows, connected systems, and affected persons.
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has ignited concerns about technological unemployment. Existing task-based evaluations predominantly measure theoretical "exposure" to AI capabilities, ignoring critical frictions of real-world commercial adoption: liability, compliance, and physical safety. We argue occupations are not eradicated instantaneously, but gradually encroached upon via atomic actions. We introduce a Tech-Risk Dual-Factor Model to re-evaluate this. By deconstructing 923 occupations into 2,087 Detailed Work Activities (DWAs), we utilize a multi-agent LLM ensemble to score both technical feasibility and business risk. Through variance-based Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) validation with an expert panel, we demonstrate a profound cognitive gap: isolated algorithmic probabilities fail to encapsulate the "institutional premium" imposed by experts bounded by professional liability. Applying a strictly algorithmic baseline via mathematical bottleneck aggregation, we calculate Relative Occupational Automation Indices ($OAI$) for the U.S. labor market. Our findings challenge the traditional Routine-Biased Technological Change (RBTC) hypothesis. Non-routine cognitive roles highly dependent on symbolic manipulation (e.g., Data Scientists) face unprecedented exposure ($OAI \approx 0.70$). Conversely, unstructured physical trades and high-stakes caretaking roles exhibit absolute resilience, quantifying a profound "Cognitive Risk Asymmetry." We hypothesize the emergent necessity of a "Compliance Premium," indicating wage resilience increasingly tied to risk-absorption capacity. We frame these findings as a cross-sectional diagnostic of systemic vulnerability, establishing a foundation for subsequent Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) econometric modeling involving dynamic wage elasticity and structural labor reallocation.
Human judgment has always been central to conflict and escalation, but how will a world of artificial intelligence (AI) change the role of humans in war? As militaries increasingly adopt AI-enabled decision-support systems (DSS), including the United States in the war against Iran, concerns about automation bias -- over-reliance on algorithmic recommendations -- and algorithm aversion -- premature distrust of automated outputs -- raise fears that relying on AI too much could increase the risk of error, miscalculation, and accidents. Yet existing evidence on how militaries actually interact with AI remains limited. We test theories about the susceptibility of militaries to automation bias by comparing the results from a survey experiment conducted with 236 cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point to a demographically similar cross-national public sample. Respondents completed a target identification task and then received advice from either an algorithm or a human analyst and had the opportunity to re-assess their initial identification, allowing direct measurement of automation bias and algorithm aversion. Contrary to prominent concerns, we find that West Point cadets are less prone to cognitive distortion than members of the general public, displaying better calibrated trust in algorithmic decision support systems. While the findings are limited, they suggest that military education and exposure to AI can meaningfully shape how AI influences international politics in matters of war and peace.
The capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) lie along a jagged frontier, where AI systems surprisingly fail on tasks that humans find easy and succeed on tasks that humans find hard. To investigate user reactions to this phenomenon, we developed an incentive-compatible experimental methodology based on diagram generation tasks, in which we induce errors in generative AI output and test effects on user reliance. We demonstrate the interface in a preregistered 3x2 experiment (N = 577) with error rates of 10%, 30%, or 50% on easier or harder diagram generation tasks. We confirmed that observing more errors reduces use, but we unexpectedly found that easy-task errors did not significantly reduce use more than hard-task errors, suggesting that people are not averse to jaggedness in this experimental setting. We encourage future work that varies task difficulty at the same time as other features of AI errors, such as whether the jagged error patterns are easily learned.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) become a primary interface between users and the web, companies face growing economic incentives to embed commercial influence into AI-mediated conversations. We present two preregistered experiments (N = 2,012) in which participants selected a book to receive from a large eBook catalog using either a traditional search engine or a conversational LLM agent powered by one of five frontier models. Unbeknownst to participants, a fifth of all products were randomly designated as sponsored and promoted in different ways. We find that LLM-driven persuasion nearly triples the rate at which users select sponsored products compared to traditional search placement (61.2% vs. 22.4%), while the vast majority of participants fail to detect any promotional steering. Explicit "Sponsored" labels do not significantly reduce persuasion, and instructing the model to conceal its intent makes its influence nearly invisible (detection accuracy < 10%). Altogether, our results indicate that conversational AI can covertly redirect consumer choices at scale, and that existing transparency mechanisms may be insufficient to protect users.
Nudging is widely used to promote behavioral change, but its effectiveness is often limited when recipients must repeatedly translate feedback into workable next steps under changing circumstances. Large language models (LLMs) may help reduce part of this cognitive work by generating personalized guidance and updating it iteratively across intervention rounds. We developed an LLM agent for iterative personalization and tested it in a three-arm randomized experiment among 233 university residents in China, using daily electricity and shower hot-water conservation as objectively measured cases differing in friction. LLM-personalized nudges (T2) produced the largest conservation effects, while image-enhanced conventional nudges (T1) and text-based conventional nudges (C) showed similar outcomes (omnibus p = 0.009). Relative to C, T2 reduced electricity consumption by 0.56 kWh per room-day (p = 0.014), corresponding to an 18.3 percentage-point higher adjusted saving rate. This advantage emerged within the first two intervention rounds, alongside iterative updating of personalized guidance, and persisted thereafter. Hot-water outcomes followed the same direction but were smaller, less precisely estimated, and attenuated over time, consistent with stronger friction in this domain. LLM-personalized nudges emphasized prospective and context-specific guidance and were associated with higher participant engagement. This study provides field evidence that LLM-based iterative personalization can enhance behavioral nudging, with behavioral friction as a potential boundary condition. Larger trials and extension to more behaviors are warranted.
2604.03865Democratic public life depends on institutions that make roles, responsibilities, relationships, and purposes intelligible as lived orientation. Contemporary AI systems are trained on web-scale corpora and aligned for helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty, but the representational structure of democratic institutional life has not been treated as an alignment target. This paper identifies and tests the democratic ontology deficit: the structural mismatch between the representational conditions democratic agency requires and the ontology contemporary AI systems are built to learn and reproduce. We apply representation engineering to three instruction-tuned models (Llama-2-13b-chat, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2, and Meta-Llama-3-8B-Instruct), extracting reading vectors for civic reasoning and its four component primitives using contrastive stimuli. The model's default ontology is organized under independence rather than civic structure. The deepest deficit is in role: the model's representation of what a person is defaults almost entirely to individual rather than communal identity. Honesty, measured on the same model at the same layer using the same method, scores 0.707; civic role scores -0.047. The pattern replicates across architectures and training generations. These findings open a concrete research program for civic alignment using the tools the field already possesses.
Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.
Internet technologies have expanded higher education students' access to learning resources, peer guidance, and skill-development opportunities beyond formal curricula. Yet the ways students assemble these distributed online resources into coherent learning pathways remain insufficiently understood. This study examines how STEM students construct digital informal learning portfolios through internet-mediated peer advice and platform use. Drawing on Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and informal learning frameworks, we analyze 3,607 peer advice posts from a large online student community using Computational Grounded Theory (CGT). Results show that career pathway (69.6% of coded documents) and career orientation (59.7%) are the dominant organizing dimensions, yielding three distinct digital informal learning portfolios: a graduate-study portfolio centered on competition training, mathematical foundations, and staged preparation; an industry-employment portfolio centered on self-directed skill building, online platform learning, and strategically timed internships; and a public-sector portfolio characterized by dual-track hedging across graduate study, enterprise employment, and public-sector preparation pathways. The online peer community itself functions as a distributed informal curriculum, collectively producing and transmitting pathway-specific guidance about what to learn, when to learn it, and which internet resources to prioritize. These findings extend SCCT into the domain of internet-mediated digital informal learning and introduce career front-loading as a pattern of early learning reorganization. Implications are discussed for institutional learning support, recognition of internet-enabled learning, and the design of digital guidance infrastructures in higher education.
This study examines travelers' preferences for electric flying taxi services in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) under varying travel conditions and service configurations. A stated preference (SP) survey of 213 respondents was conducted to analyze behavior across multiple transport alternatives, including private vehicles, public transport, ground taxis, and both shared and exclusive flying taxi services. The analysis considered key attributes such as travel time and cost, along with contextual factors including travel distance, congestion conditions, day of travel, and trip purpose. In addition, follow-up questions were used to capture the underlying reasons for mode choice and to assess potential modal shifts under changes in travel conditions. The results show that flying taxi services account for 22.6% of total responses, with higher shares under congested conditions and declining shares as travel distance increases. Clear differences are observed between shared and exclusive services. Shared flying taxis achieve higher modal shares and exhibit greater responsiveness to travel conditions, particularly at moderate distances, during weekdays, and for leisure trips. In contrast, exclusive flying taxis maintain lower modal shares, decline with increasing travel distance, and are more associated with business and weekend travel. The modal shift analysis further indicates that ground taxi users exhibit the highest propensity to switch to shared flying taxi services, particularly under cost increases. These findings highlight the importance of pricing and service design in promoting the adoption of shared flying taxi services as a more sustainable mobility option. In particular, maintaining affordable shared services, ensuring clear price differentiation from exclusive services, and prioritizing deployment in congested corridors and medium-distance travel markets can enhance adoption.
This paper reports a survey of generative AI use among 83 MBA thesis students in Japan (target population 230; 36.1% response rate), conducted after thesis examiner evaluation. AI use was nearly universal: 95.2% reported at least some use and 77.1% heavy use. Students engaged AI across the full research-writing workflow - literature review, drafting, and consultation when stuck - reporting benefits centered on clearer argument and structure (82.3%), better revision quality (73.4%), and faster writing (70.9%), with a mean perceived quality improvement of 6.27 out of 7. Concerns about output accuracy (75.9%) and citation handling persisted alongside these gains. Among respondents who rated GAMER PAT, a research-specialized agent, against other AI, preferences significantly favored it for inquiry deepening and structural organization (both p < 0.05, exact binomial). A preliminary qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews further reveals active epistemic vigilance strategies and differentiated tool use across thesis phases. The central implication is not adoption itself but a shift in the educational challenge toward verification, source governance, and AI tool design - with GAMER PAT offering preliminary evidence that research-specialized scaffolding matters.
2604.02720Governance theory has always presumed cognitive comparability between governors and governed. This paper identifies that unstated assumption, constructs a framework that makes it testable, and shows that it is load-bearing. The framework specifies necessary conditions along six dimensions (legitimacy, accountability, corrigibility, non-domination, subsidiarity, and institutional resilience), synthesized from political legitimacy theory, principal-agent models, republican political theory, and AI alignment research. Applied first to existing institutions and then to a prospective case of bounded superintelligent authority where capability asymmetry is radical, the framework finds structural failures on four of six dimensions. Among these, two are design-tractable and two are theory-requiring: the public reason problem under cognitive incomprehensibility and the non-domination problem under permanent capability asymmetry demand genuinely new normative frameworks, not better institutional design. A further finding is that dimensions which function as independent checks under bounded asymmetry become correlated failures under radical asymmetry. The analysis contributes to political theory by exposing foundational assumptions that have gone unexamined because, until now, they have always been satisfied.
Large language models show promising capabilities for contextual fact-checking on social media: they can verify contested claims through deep research, synthesize evidence from multiple sources, and draft explanations at scale. However, prior work evaluates LLM fact-checking only in controlled settings using benchmarks or crowdworker judgments, leaving open how these systems perform in authentic platform environments. We present the first field evaluation of LLM-based fact-checking deployed on a live social media platform, testing performance directly through X Community Notes' AI writer feature over a three-month period. Our LLM writer, a multi-step pipeline that handles multimodal content (text, images, and videos), conducts web and platform-native search, and writes contextual notes, was deployed to write 1,614 notes on 1,597 tweets and compared against 1,332 human-written notes on the same tweets using 108,169 ratings from 42,521 raters. Direct comparison of note-level platform outcomes is complicated by differences in submission timing and rating exposure between LLM and human notes; we therefore pursue two complementary strategies: a rating-level analysis modeling individual rater evaluations, and a note-level analysis that equalizes rater exposure across note types. Rating-level analysis shows that LLM notes receive more positive ratings than human notes across raters with different political viewpoints, suggesting the potential for LLM-written notes to achieve the cross-partisan consensus. Note-level analysis confirms this advantage: among raters who evaluated all notes on the same post, LLM notes achieve significantly higher helpfulness scores. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs can contribute high-quality, broadly helpful fact-checking at scale, while highlighting that real-world evaluation requires careful attention to platform dynamics absent from controlled settings.
Behavioral simulation is increasingly used to anticipate responses to interventions. Large language models (LLMs) enable researchers to specify population characteristics and intervention context in natural language, but it remains unclear to what extent LLMs can use these inputs to infer intervention effects. We evaluated three LLMs on 11 climate-psychology interventions using a dataset of 59,508 participants from 62 countries, and replicated the main analysis in two additional datasets (12 and 27 countries). LLMs reproduced observed patterns in attitudinal outcomes (e.g., climate beliefs and policy support) reasonably well, and prompting refinements improved this descriptive fit. However, descriptive fit did not reliably translate into causal fidelity (i.e., accurate estimates of intervention effects), and these two dimensions of accuracy followed different error structures. This descriptive-causal divergence held across the three datasets, but varied across intervention logics, with larger errors for interventions that depended on evoking internal experience than on directly conveying reasons or social cues. It was more pronounced for behavioral outcomes, where LLMs imposed stronger attitude-behavior coupling than in human data. Countries and population groups appearing well captured descriptively were not necessarily those with lower causal errors. Relying on descriptive fit alone may therefore create unwarranted confidence in simulation results, misleading conclusions about intervention effects and masking population disparities that matter for fairness.