Research Papers

Brainrot: Deskilling and Addiction are Overlooked AI Risks

Ilias Chalkidis, Anders Søgaard

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

Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution

Ruta Binkyte, Ivaxi Sheth, Zhijing Jin +3

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

We present AttentionBender, a tool that manipulates cross-attention in Video Diffusion Transformers to help artists probe the internal mechanics of black-box video generation. While generative outputs are increasingly realistic, prompt-only control limits artists' ability to build intuition for the model's material process or to work beyond its default tendencies. Using an autobiographical research-through-design approach, we built on Network Bending to design AttentionBender, which applies 2D transforms (rotation, scaling, translation, etc.) to cross-attention maps to modulate generation. We assess AttentionBender by visualizing 4,500+ video generations across prompts, operations, and layer targets. Our results suggest that cross-attention is highly entangled: targeted manipulations often resist clean, localized control, producing distributed distortions and glitch aesthetics over linear edits. AttentionBender contributes a tool that functions both as an Explainable AI style probe of transformer attention mechanisms, and as a creative technique for producing novel aesthetics beyond the model's learned representational space.

Autonomous AI agents now plan, decide, and act on behalf of users across healthcare, financial services, and workplace contexts, often without step-by-step human approval. Existing AI literacy frameworks were built for a world in which humans evaluate AI outputs and decide whether to act; they have no vocabulary for the user who has delegated decision-making authority to an agent whose actions may not be observable, reversible, or controllable. This paper names the resulting problem agentic literacy debt: the accumulating societal deficit that grows when agentic AI systems are deployed at scale without corresponding literacy infrastructure. The debt compounds through three reinforcing channels (normalization of opaque delegation, multi-agent ecosystem complexity, and institutional path dependence), and it is incurred by the organizations that deploy agents but paid by the users, patients, and citizens on whose behalf the agents act. Evidence from healthcare, financial fraud, and global equity contexts suggests the gap is already consequential. The problem is structural, not a temporary lag that curriculum reform will close. It demands a reframing of AI literacy as a governance capability, not an evaluative one.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to translate the technical outputs of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods into accessible natural-language explanations. However, existing approaches often lack guarantees of accuracy, faithfulness, and completeness. At the same time, current efforts to evaluate such narratives remain largely subjective or confined to post-hoc scoring, offering no safeguards to prevent flawed explanations from reaching end-users. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a Two-Stage LLM Meta-Verification Framework that consists of (i) an Explainer LLM that converts raw XAI outputs into natural-language narratives, (ii) a Verifier LLM that assesses them in terms of faithfulness, coherence, completeness, and hallucination risk, and (iii) an iterative refeed mechanism that uses the Verifier's feedback to refine and improve them. Experiments across five XAI techniques and datasets, using three families of open-weight LLMs, show that verification is crucial for filtering unreliable explanations while improving linguistic accessibility compared with raw XAI outputs. In addition, the analysis of the Entropy Production Rate (EPR) during the refinement process indicates that the Verifier's feedback progressively guides the Explainer toward more stable and coherent reasoning. Overall, the proposed framework provides an efficient pathway toward more trustworthy and democratized XAI systems.

Current discourse on Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics, dominated by "trustworthy" and "responsible" AI, overlooks a more fundamental human-computer interaction (HCI) crisis: the erosion of human agency. This paper argues that the primary challenge of high-stakes AI systems is not trust, but the preservation of human causal control. We posit that "bad AI" will function as "bad UI," a metaphor for catastrophic interface failures that misrepresent system state and lead to human error. Applying Marshall McLuhan's media theory, AI can be framed as a technology of "augmentation" that simultaneously "amputates" the user's direct perception of causality. This places the interface as the critical locus where a "double uncertainty"--that of the human user and that of the probabilistic model--must be mediated. We critique current Explainable AI (XAI) for its correlational focus and failure to represent uncertainty. We conclude by proposing a rigorous, nested Causal-Agency Framework (CAF) that integrates causal models, uncertainty quantification, and human-centered evaluation to restore agency at the interface.

AI systems increasingly shape high-stakes decisions in healthcare, law, defense, and education, yet existing governance paradigms -- AI Ethics, AI Safety, and AI Alignment -- share a common limitation: they evaluate outcomes rather than verifying the reasoning process itself. This paper introduces AI Integrity, a concept defined as a state in which the Authority Stack of an AI system -- its layered hierarchy of values, epistemological standards, source preferences, and data selection criteria -- is protected from corruption, contamination, manipulation, and bias, and maintained in a verifiable manner. We distinguish AI Integrity from the three existing paradigms, define the Authority Stack as a 4-layer cascade model (Normative, Epistemic, Source, and Data Authority) grounded in established academic frameworks -- Schwartz Basic Human Values for normative authority, Walton argumentation schemes with GRADE/CEBM hierarchies for epistemic authority, and Source Credibility Theory for source authority -- characterize the distinction between legitimate cascading and Authority Pollution, and identify Integrity Hallucination as the central measurable threat to value consistency. We further specify the PRISM (Profile-based Reasoning Integrity Stack Measurement) framework as the operational methodology, defining six core metrics and a phased research roadmap. Unlike normative frameworks that prescribe which values are correct, AI Integrity is a procedural concept: it requires that the path from evidence to conclusion be transparent and auditable, regardless of which values a system holds.

Current approaches to AI safety define red lines at the case level: specific prompts, specific outputs, specific harms. This paper argues that red lines can be set more fundamentally -- at the level of value, evidence, and source hierarchies that govern AI reasoning. Using the PRISM (Profile-based Reasoning Integrity Stack Measurement) framework, we define a taxonomy of 27 behavioral risk signals derived from structural anomalies in how AI systems prioritize values (L4), weight evidence types (L3), and trust information sources (L2). Each signal is evaluated through a dual-threshold principle combining absolute rank position and relative win-rate gap, producing a two-tier classification (Confirmed Risk vs. Watch Signal). The hierarchy-based approach offers three advantages over case-specific red lines: it is anticipatory rather than reactive (detecting dangerous reasoning structures before they produce harmful outputs), comprehensive rather than enumerative (a single value-hierarchy signal subsumes an unlimited number of case-specific violations), and measurable rather than subjective (grounded in empirical forced-choice data). We demonstrate the framework's detection capacity using approximately 397,000 forced-choice responses from 7 AI models across three Authority Stack layers, showing that the signal taxonomy successfully discriminates between models with structurally extreme profiles, models with context-dependent risk, and models with balanced hierarchies.

Investigating Bias and Fairness in Appearance-based Gaze Estimation

Burak Akgül, Erol Şahin, Sinan Kalkan

While appearance-based gaze estimation has achieved significant improvements in accuracy and domain adaptation, the fairness of these systems across different demographic groups remains largely unexplored. To date, there is no comprehensive benchmark quantifying algorithmic bias in gaze estimation. This paper presents the first extensive evaluation of fairness in appearance-based gaze estimation, focusing on ethnicity and gender attributes. We establish a fairness baseline by analyzing state-of-the-art models using standard fairness metrics, revealing significant performance disparities. Furthermore, we evaluate the effectiveness of existing bias mitigation strategies when applied to the gaze domain and show that their fairness contributions are limited. We summarize key insights and open issues. Overall, our work calls for research into developing robust, equitable gaze estimators. To support future research and reproducibility, we publicly release our annotations, code, and trained models at: github.com/akgulburak/gaze-estimation-fairness

Retail supply chain operations in supermarket chains involve continuous, high-volume manual workflows spanning demand forecasting, procurement, supplier coordination, and inventory replenishment, processes that are repetitive, decision-intensive, and difficult to scale without significant human effort. Despite growing investment in data analytics, the decision-making and coordination layers of these workflows remain predominantly manual, reactive, and fragmented across outlets, distribution centers, and supplier networks. This paper introduces Flowr, a novel agentic AI framework for automating end-to-end retail supply chain workflows in large-scale supermarket operations. Flowr systematically decomposes manual supply chain operations into specialized AI agents, each responsible for a clearly defined cognitive role, enabling automation of processes previously dependent on continuous human coordination. To ensure task accuracy and adherence to responsible AI principles, the framework employs a consortium of fine-tuned, domain-specialized large language models coordinated by a central reasoning LLM. Central to the framework is a human-in-the-loop orchestration model in which supply chain managers supervise and intervene across workflow stages via a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-enabled interface, preserving accountability and organizational control. Evaluation demonstrates that Flowr significantly reduces manual coordination overhead, improves demand-supply alignment, and enables proactive exception handling at a scale unachievable through manual processes. The framework was validated in collaboration with a large-scale supermarket chain and is domain-independent, offering a generalizable blueprint for agentic AI-driven supply chain automation across large-scale enterprise settings.

Ensuring that artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy formal safety and policy constraints is a central challenge in safety-critical domains. While limitations of verification are often attributed to combinatorial complexity and model expressiveness, we show that they arise from intrinsic information-theoretic limits. We formalize policy compliance as a verification problem over encoded system behaviors and analyze it using Kolmogorov complexity. We prove an incompleteness result: for any fixed sound computably enumerable verifier, there exists a threshold beyond which true policy-compliant instances cannot be certified once their complexity exceeds that threshold. Consequently, no finite formal verifier can certify all policy-compliant instances of arbitrarily high complexity. This reveals a fundamental limitation of AI safety verification independent of computational resources, and motivates proof-carrying approaches that provide instance-level correctness guarantees.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems continue to grow in size and complexity, so does the difficulty of the quest for AI transparency. In a world of large models and complex AI systems, why do we explain AI and what should we explain? While explanations serve multiple functions, in the face of complexity humans have used and continue to use explanations to foster learning. In this position paper, we discuss how learning theories can be infused in the XAI lifecycle, as well as the key opportunities and challenges when adopting a learner-centered approach to assess, design and evaluate AI explanations. Building on past work, we argue that a learner-centered approach to Explainable AI (XAI) can enhance human agency and ease XAI risks mitigation, helping evolve the practice of human-centered XAI.