The Inference Report

AI nudification uses generative models to create synthetic non-consensual sexually explicit imagery (SNEACI) of real individuals. Prior work has examined dedicated nudification platforms and model repositories, finding that most targets are female celebrities. However, the anonymous content community, where SNEACI is actively requested, generated, and exchanged, remains unexplored. In this work, we present a large-scale study of AI nudification in the wild, identifying 24,105 SNEACI items. We find a significant shift in target demographics: non-celebrity individuals now account for 55.8\% of targets, compared to only 4.7\% in prior studies, indicating that AI nudification has expanded from targeting public figures to increasingly harming individuals within users' own social circles. Meanwhile, open-source models dominate production, with Stable Diffusion family generating 42.7\% of images and Wan generating 66.5\% of videos, all driven by thousands of shared fine-tuned models and accessible tutorials. Yet the ecosystem runs on a small cohort of active producers, with the most prolific producing 780 items, drives community engagement, shapes target demographics, and disseminates technical knowledge that lowers barriers for new producers. Our work provides an empirical understanding of how AI nudification operates in the wild, revealing the mechanisms that sustain this ecosystem and highlighting the urgent need for interventions in platform governance, technical safeguards, and affected individual protection.

Most tools for measuring political positions, manifesto coding, expert surveys, text-scaling models, were built and validated on Western party systems, and outside that setting they work poorly, and often not at all. This paper is an attempt at a method for those settings. It treats a large language model not as a measurement device but as a single, fallible rater in a panel, roughly the way an expert survey treats one expert: the value comes from pooling many judges rather than trusting any one of them. I describe the panel, an applicability rule that keeps a score of zero distinct from a blank, and a lens system that separates what an actor says from what it does. I report three results. First, holding a definition-free round fixed, adding written axis definitions moves scores by a mean of 1.8 points on a 21-point scale and tightens agreement between raters (mean absolute gap 2.81 to 2.50; r 0.81 to 0.89); they make two independent raters agree more closely, which an arbitrary steer would not. Second, across nine models from eight laboratories in two countries, Krippendorff's alpha is 0.86 on both an interval and an ordinal metric, and it stayed put as the panel grew from five raters to nine. That is reliability, the reproducibility of a reading, and not validity, its correctness. Third, where the panel does disagree, the disagreement is informative: the sharpest split, a full-scale divergence on an actor's stance toward its state's foundational order, points to a referent problem, and a blind triple-coding puts about two-thirds of it down to interpretation rather than error. I try to be plain about what the method can't do, including the human validation it still lacks, and I release the instrument and data in full. The worked example is the Middle East and North Africa, but I'd expect the method to carry to any region these standard tools leave out.

Automated feedback systems that rely on answer correctness will reinforce, rather than address, misconceptions when students reach the correct answer through flawed reasoning. We investigate automatic detection of these hidden misconceptions using 20,964 real student responses from the Eedi mathematics platform. Fine-tuned classifiers detect only 57% of these hidden misconceptions, and standard ML interventions do not improve on this. An open-weight reasoning model detects 84%, but at realistic prevalence, false alarms outnumber genuine detections roughly 8 to 1. We present a graduated assessment rubric that separates answer correctness from method validity, and propose a detect-verify-escalate pipeline that routes uncertain cases to diagnostic follow-up questions rather than directly to teachers. Two deployment modes adapt the pipeline: a teacher dashboard where the system filters a review queue, and an autonomous tutor where flags trigger low-cost formative follow-up.

Benchmark-based evaluation is the dominant paradigm for assessing large language model (LLM) capabilities, yet data contamination inflates reported performance and undermines fair comparison. Existing decontamination methods are evaluated solely through aggregate accuracy, which can obscure substantial differences in per-sample model behaviour, and many require access to an uncontaminated model. In this paper, we propose a sample-level evaluation framework for decontamination that complements accuracy-based assessment with distributional distance metrics, measuring how closely a decontaminated model recovers the output distribution of an uncontaminated model on each sample. Building on this framework, we introduce Uncertainty-Based Decontamination (UBD), a family of methods that leverage deep ensembles of the contaminated model to estimate per-sample memorization without requiring a uncontaminated model or knowledge of which samples are contaminated. UBD estimates a per-sample correction scalar from ensemble uncertainty, which is used to construct a debiased target distribution that suppresses the inflated probability mass on correct answers induced by contamination. This target is then used either as a post-hoc output correction (debiasing) or as a soft training signal for parameter update (unlearning). Experiments on MMLU-Pro and MATH-MCQA across multiple LLM backbones demonstrate that UBD produces per-sample output distributions substantially closer to those of an uncontaminated model than paraphrasing or choice-permutation baselines, while preserving model performance on uncontaminated data.

This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks. As these systems enter real research workflows, decision-makers increasingly face evaluation results whose meaning depends on underlying design choices that are often implicit or under-documented. We synthesize current evidence on AI-enabled biological risks and introduce biological agentic evaluations as a promising, but interpretation-sensitive, tool for assessing these systems. Our central contribution is a set of practical, experience-grounded considerations -- drawing from our own evaluations -- that show how choices around defining, designing, running, scoring, and documenting evaluations materially shape what results do and do not imply about risk. The analysis is intended to help policymakers interpret biological evaluation outputs with appropriate caution; guide public and private funders toward high-leverage investments in AI-biology evaluation research; and support biosecurity practitioners assessing emerging AI systems. A secondary audience includes researchers designing or conducting agentic evaluations within frontier AI labs, AI providers, scientific institutions, and third-party evaluation organizations.

This paper examines the impact of artificial intelligence and digital technologies on the blue-collar gig economy in India, focusing on algorithmic management. This paper examines the impact of artificial intelligence and digital technologies on the blue collar gig economy in India, focusing on algorithmic management he use of automated systems to allocate, monitor, and evaluate work in location-based services such as ride sharing and delivery. Using a social justice framework and a mixed-methods approach comprising interviews with 16 gig workers and 21 key stakeholders, the study uncovers a dual reality: while AI-powered systems expand access to work and generate operational efficiencies, they simultaneously introduce significant challenges related to fairness, transparency, and worker dignity. Key findings reveal that algorithmic systems are opaque by design, produce inequitable outcomes, and are not structured to reward additional labour with proportionate pay. The study advocates for a pragmatic hybrid governance model an Algorithmic Human Manager framework in which technological efficiency and human accountability operate together rather than in opposition. The findings carry implications for policymakers, platform companies, and civil society organizations working to design equitable AI governance frameworks for the gig economy in India and across the Global South.