Research Papers

Recent advances in large language models have enabled developers to generate software by conversing with artificial intelligence systems rather than writing code directly. This paper introduces vibe coding, an emerging AI-native programming paradigm in which a developer specifies high-level functional intent along with qualitative descriptors of the desired "vibe" (tone, style, or emotional resonance). An intelligent agent then transforms those specifications into executable software. We formalize the definition of vibe coding and propose a reference architecture that includes an intent parser, a semantic embedding engine, an agentic code generator, and an interactive feedback loop. A hypothetical implementation is described. We compare vibe coding with declarative, functional, and prompt-based programming, and we discuss its implications for software engineering, human-AI collaboration, and responsible AI practice. Finally, we examine reported productivity gains and democratizing effects, review recent studies that highlight vulnerabilities and potential slowdowns, identify key challenges such as alignment, reproducibility, bias, explainability, maintainability, and security, and outline future directions and open research questions.

This study provides an in_depth analysis of the ethical and trustworthiness challenges emerging alongside the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and proposes a comprehensive framework for their systematic evaluation. While generative AI, such as ChatGPT, demonstrates remarkable innovative potential, it simultaneously raises ethical and social concerns, including bias, harmfulness, copyright infringement, privacy violations, and hallucination. Current AI evaluation methodologies, which mainly focus on performance and accuracy, are insufficient to address these multifaceted issues. Thus, this study emphasizes the need for new human_centered criteria that also reflect social impact. To this end, it identifies key dimensions for evaluating the ethics and trustworthiness of generative AI_fairness, transparency, accountability, safety, privacy, accuracy, consistency, robustness, explainability, copyright and intellectual property protection, and source traceability and develops detailed indicators and assessment methodologies for each. Moreover, it provides a comparative analysis of AI ethics policies and guidelines in South Korea, the United States, the European Union, and China, deriving key approaches and implications from each. The proposed framework applies across the AI lifecycle and integrates technical assessments with multidisciplinary perspectives, thereby offering practical means to identify and manage ethical risks in real_world contexts. Ultimately, the study establishes an academic foundation for the responsible advancement of generative AI and delivers actionable insights for policymakers, developers, users, and other stakeholders, supporting the positive societal contributions of AI technologies.

We introduce Advertisement Embedding Attacks (AEA), a new class of LLM security threats that stealthily inject promotional or malicious content into model outputs and AI agents. AEA operate through two low-cost vectors: (1) hijacking third-party service-distribution platforms to prepend adversarial prompts, and (2) publishing back-doored open-source checkpoints fine-tuned with attacker data. Unlike conventional attacks that degrade accuracy, AEA subvert information integrity, causing models to return covert ads, propaganda, or hate speech while appearing normal. We detail the attack pipeline, map five stakeholder victim groups, and present an initial prompt-based self-inspection defense that mitigates these injections without additional model retraining. Our findings reveal an urgent, under-addressed gap in LLM security and call for coordinated detection, auditing, and policy responses from the AI-safety community.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging raises crucial ethical concerns at every stage of its development, from data collection to deployment. Addressing these concerns is essential for ensuring that AI systems are developed and implemented in a manner that respects patient rights and promotes fairness. This study aims to explore the ethical implications of AI in medical imaging, focusing on five key stages: data collection, data processing, model training, model evaluation, and deployment. The goal is to evaluate how these stages adhere to fundamental ethical principles, including data privacy, fairness, transparency, accountability, and autonomy. An analytical approach was employed to examine the ethical challenges associated with each stage of AI development. We reviewed existing literature, guidelines, and regulations concerning AI ethics in healthcare and identified critical ethical issues at each stage. The study outlines specific inquiries and principles for each phase of AI development. The findings highlight key ethical issues: ensuring patient consent and anonymization during data collection, addressing biases in model training, ensuring transparency and fairness during model evaluation, and the importance of continuous ethical assessments during deployment. The analysis also emphasizes the impact of accessibility issues on different stakeholders, including private, public, and third-party entities. The study concludes that ethical considerations must be systematically integrated into each stage of AI development in medical imaging. By adhering to these ethical principles, AI systems can be made more robust, transparent, and aligned with patient care and data control. We propose tailored ethical inquiries and strategies to support the creation of ethically sound AI systems in medical imaging.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is a crucial pathway in mitigating the risk of non-transparency in the decision-making process of black-box Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. However, despite the benefits, XAI methods are found to leak the privacy of individuals whose data is used in training or querying the models. Researchers have demonstrated privacy attacks that exploit explanations to infer sensitive personal information of individuals. Currently there is a lack of defenses against known privacy attacks targeting explanations when vulnerable XAI are used in production and machine learning as a service system. To address this gap, in this article, we explore Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) as a defense mechanism against attribute inference on explanations provided by feature-based XAI methods. We empirically evaluate 3 types of PETs, namely synthetic training data, differentially private training and noise addition, on two categories of feature-based XAI. Our evaluation determines different responses from the mitigation methods and side-effects of PETs on other system properties such as utility and performance. In the best case, PETs integration in explanations reduced the risk of the attack by 49.47%, while maintaining model utility and explanation quality. Through our evaluation, we identify strategies for using PETs in XAI for maximizing benefits and minimizing the success of this privacy attack on sensitive personal information.

As e-commerce rapidly integrates artificial intelligence for content creation and product recommendations, these technologies offer significant benefits in personalization and efficiency. AI-driven systems automate product descriptions, generate dynamic advertisements, and deliver tailored recommendations based on consumer behavior, as seen in major platforms like Amazon and Shopify. However, the widespread use of AI in e-commerce raises crucial ethical challenges, particularly around data privacy, algorithmic bias, and consumer autonomy. Bias -- whether cultural, gender-based, or socioeconomic -- can be inadvertently embedded in AI models, leading to inequitable product recommendations and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. This paper examines the ethical implications of AI-driven content creation and product recommendations, emphasizing the need for frameworks to ensure fairness, transparency, and need for more established and robust ethical standards. We propose actionable best practices to remove bias and ensure inclusivity, such as conducting regular audits of algorithms, diversifying training data, and incorporating fairness metrics into AI models. Additionally, we discuss frameworks for ethical conformance that focus on safeguarding consumer data privacy, promoting transparency in decision-making processes, and enhancing consumer autonomy. By addressing these issues, we provide guidelines for responsibly utilizing AI in e-commerce applications for content creation and product recommendations, ensuring that these technologies are both effective and ethically sound.

Machine learning models should not reveal particular information that is not otherwise accessible. Differential privacy provides a formal framework to mitigate privacy risks by ensuring that the inclusion or exclusion of any single data point does not significantly alter the output of an algorithm, thus limiting the exposure of private information. This survey reviews the foundational definitions of differential privacy and traces their evolution through key theoretical and applied contributions. It then provides an in-depth examination of how DP has been integrated into machine learning models, analyzing existing proposals and methods to preserve privacy when training ML models. Finally, it describes how DP-based ML techniques can be evaluated in practice. By offering a comprehensive overview of differential privacy in machine learning, this work aims to contribute to the ongoing development of secure and responsible AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various domains. However, their potential to generate harmful responses has raised significant societal and regulatory concerns, especially when manipulated by adversarial techniques known as "jailbreak" attacks. Existing jailbreak methods typically involve appending carefully crafted prefixes or suffixes to malicious prompts in order to bypass the built-in safety mechanisms of these models. In this work, we identify a new vulnerability in which excessive linguistic complexity can disrupt built-in safety mechanisms-without the need for any added prefixes or suffixes-allowing attackers to elicit harmful outputs directly. We refer to this phenomenon as Information Overload. To automatically exploit this vulnerability, we propose InfoFlood, a jailbreak attack that transforms malicious queries into complex, information-overloaded queries capable of bypassing built-in safety mechanisms. Specifically, InfoFlood: (1) uses linguistic transformations to rephrase malicious queries, (2) identifies the root cause of failure when an attempt is unsuccessful, and (3) refines the prompt's linguistic structure to address the failure while preserving its malicious intent. We empirically validate the effectiveness of InfoFlood on four widely used LLMs-GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, Gemini 2.0, and LLaMA 3.1-by measuring their jailbreak success rates. InfoFlood consistently outperforms baseline attacks, achieving up to 3 times higher success rates across multiple jailbreak benchmarks. Furthermore, we demonstrate that commonly adopted post-processing defenses, including OpenAI's Moderation API, Perspective API, and SmoothLLM, fail to mitigate these attacks. This highlights a critical weakness in traditional AI safety guardrails when confronted with information overload-based jailbreaks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) systems, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMA, and Copilot (by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, respectively), are reshaping digital platforms and app ecosystems while introducing critical challenges in cybersecurity, privacy, and platform integrity. Our analysis reveals alarming trends: LLM-assisted malware is projected to rise from 2% (2021) to 50% (2025); AI-generated Google reviews grew nearly tenfold (1.2% in 2021 to 12.21% in 2023, expected to reach 30% by 2025); AI scam reports surged 456%; misinformation sites increased over 1500%; and deepfake attacks are projected to rise over 900% in 2025. In finance, LLM-driven threats like synthetic identity fraud and AI-generated scams are accelerating. Platforms such as JPMorgan Chase, Stripe, and Plaid deploy LLMs for fraud detection, regulation parsing, and KYC/AML automation, reducing fraud loss by up to 21% and accelerating onboarding by 40-60%. LLM-facilitated code development has driven mobile app submissions from 1.8 million (2020) to 3.0 million (2024), projected to reach 3.6 million (2025). To address AI threats, platforms like Google Play, Apple App Store, GitHub Copilot, TikTok, Facebook, and Amazon deploy LLM-based defenses, highlighting their dual nature as both threat sources and mitigation tools. In clinical diagnostics, LLMs raise concerns about accuracy, bias, and safety, necessitating strong governance. Drawing on 445 references, this paper surveys LLM/GenAI and proposes a strategic roadmap and operational blueprint integrating policy auditing (such as CCPA and GDPR compliance), fraud detection, and demonstrates an advanced LLM-DA stack with modular components, multi-LLM routing, agentic memory, and governance layers. We provide actionable insights, best practices, and real-world case studies for scalable trust and responsible innovation.

Access Controls Will Solve the Dual-Use Dilemma

Evžen Wybitul

AI safety systems face the dual-use dilemma. It is unclear whether to answer dual-use requests, since the same query could be either harmless or harmful depending on who made it and why. To make better decisions, such systems would need to examine requests' real-world context, but currently, they lack access to this information. Instead, they sometimes end up making arbitrary choices that result in refusing legitimate queries and allowing harmful ones, which hurts both utility and safety. To address this, we propose a conceptual framework based on access controls where only verified users can access dual-use outputs. We describe the framework's components, analyse its feasibility, and explain how it addresses both over-refusals and under-refusals. While only a high-level proposal, our work takes the first step toward giving model providers more granular tools for managing dual-use content. Such tools would enable users to access more capabilities without sacrificing safety, and offer regulators new options for targeted policies.

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for safety and security remains a complex task, often requiring users to navigate a fragmented landscape of ad hoc benchmarks, datasets, metrics, and reporting formats. To address this challenge, we present aiXamine, a comprehensive black-box evaluation platform for LLM safety and security. aiXamine integrates over 40 tests (i.e., benchmarks) organized into eight key services targeting specific dimensions of safety and security: adversarial robustness, code security, fairness and bias, hallucination, model and data privacy, out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness, over-refusal, and safety alignment. The platform aggregates the evaluation results into a single detailed report per model, providing a detailed breakdown of model performance, test examples, and rich visualizations. We used aiXamine to assess over 50 publicly available and proprietary LLMs, conducting over 2K examinations. Our findings reveal notable vulnerabilities in leading models, including susceptibility to adversarial attacks in OpenAI's GPT-4o, biased outputs in xAI's Grok-3, and privacy weaknesses in Google's Gemini 2.0. Additionally, we observe that open-source models can match or exceed proprietary models in specific services such as safety alignment, fairness and bias, and OOD robustness. Finally, we identify trade-offs between distillation strategies, model size, training methods, and architectural choices.

International cooperation is common in AI research, including between geopolitical rivals. While many experts advocate for greater international cooperation on AI safety to address shared global risks, some view cooperation on AI with suspicion, arguing that it can pose unacceptable risks to national security. However, the extent to which cooperation on AI safety poses such risks, as well as provides benefits, depends on the specific area of cooperation. In this paper, we consider technical factors that impact the risks of international cooperation on AI safety research, focusing on the degree to which such cooperation can advance dangerous capabilities, result in the sharing of sensitive information, or provide opportunities for harm. We begin by why nations historically cooperate on strategic technologies and analyse current US-China cooperation in AI as a case study. We further argue that existing frameworks for managing associated risks can be supplemented with consideration of key risks specific to cooperation on technical AI safety research. Through our analysis, we find that research into AI verification mechanisms and shared protocols may be suitable areas for such cooperation. Through this analysis we aim to help researchers and governments identify and mitigate the risks of international cooperation on AI safety research, so that the benefits of cooperation can be fully realised.