The Inference Report

Early 2025 we ran a series of vibe coding challenges across four different student cohorts. The cohorts included 54 ICT students, 24 digital marketing students, and 7 journalism students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and 22 BA Communication students at North-West University (South Africa). From the student reflections, five major patterns emerged. Students reported that AI tools shifted their focus from syntax to higher-order thinking; they also described a skill shift from memorizing to evaluating; they viewed AI proficiency as career-essential; they framed their relationship with AI as partnership rather than replacement; and finally non-technical students showed the strongest appreciation for the accessibility these tools provide. This practitioner report documents what we observed during the classroom experiments, we reflect on how the landscape has shifted in the year since, and shares practical lessons for educators considering similar experiments. We present the observations as what they are: patterns from practice, not proven conclusions, in the beleif that sharing early stage experiences contributes to the overall field of AI and education.

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor performance.

Continuous post-deployment compliance audits, mandated by emerging regulations such as the EU AI Act and Digital Services Act, create a class of strategic gaming distinct from the one-shot input/output gaming studied in prior work. Regulated systems can delay outcome reporting, drift their reports within plausible noise envelopes, exploit longitudinal sample attrition, and cherry-pick among ambiguous metric definitions. We formalize continuous auditing as a $T$-round Stackelberg game between an auditor that commits to a temporal policy and an adaptive auditee, and identify a structural feature of any noise-aware static-auditor design: a cover regime in which coverage gaps and granularity gaps cannot be closed simultaneously. We make this formal as Observation 1 and show that two minimal extension policies, each derived from the observation, close the regime along orthogonal axes: a sample-size-aware static rule (Periodic-with-floor) closes the granularity-failure case, while a history-conditioned suspicion-escalation policy closes the coverage-failure case for the naive Drift strategy -- and neither closes both, exactly as the observation predicts; an audit-aware OffAuditDrift strategy that exploits Stackelberg commitment defeats both. To support empirical study we contribute a non-additive harm decomposition (welfare loss $W$, coverage loss $C$) that exposes how attrition shifts harm from the regulator-accountable surface to a regulator-invisible one; an initial library of five auditee strategies (Delay, Drift, Cherry-pick, Attrition, OffAuditDrift) and five auditor policies, calibrated to summary statistics from published audits of the DSA Transparency Database; and a reproducible simulator with a small, extensible Python interface.

We argue that AI-saturated markets are likely to create Veblen-good premiums, which we term human-provenance premiums, for verified human presence, and hence AI governance should treat human-provenance verification as labor infrastructure. Generative and agentic AI systems lower the cost of many standardized cognitive, creative, and coordination tasks, weakening the scarcity premiums that have supported much middle-tier knowledge work. We argue that this pressure may produce an asymmetric barbell-shaped structure of value capture in advanced economies: high-volume synthetic production controlled by owners of AI infrastructure at one pole, and scarce, high-status human labor valued for verified human presence at the other. We advance three claims. First, AI compresses the value of standardized middle-tier labor by making good-enough synthetic substitutes scalable at low marginal cost, hollowing out the middle of the skill distribution currently categorized by knowledge work. Second, this compression reallocates demand for human labor toward work valued for its visible human character. We term this performative humanity and distinguish three forms of labor: relational presence, aesthetic provenance, and accountability. Third, as these premiums depend on credible verification, AI governance should treat human-provenance systems as labor infrastructure rather than as luxury authenticity labels. To evaluate hybrid human-AI work, we propose constitutive human presence as the relevant standard: human labor retains premium value when human judgment, attention, accountability, authorship, or relational participation is not incidental to the output but constitutive of what is being purchased.

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.

Generative AI has rapidly entered education through free consumer tools, outpacing the ability of schools and universities to respond. Now a new wave of more autonomous agentic AI systems--with the capacity to plan and act towards goals--promises both greater educational personalization and greater disruption. This chapter argues that successfully navigating these innovations requires balancing three core tensions: (1) Implementation Feasibility, or the practical capacity to integrate AI sustainably into real classrooms; (2) Adaptation Speed, or the mismatch between fast-evolving AI capabilities and the slower pace of educational change; and (3) Mission Alignment, or the need to ensure AI applications uphold educational values such as equity, privacy, and pedagogical integrity. First, we review early evidence of generative and agentic AI in various sectors and in frontline education to illustrate these tensions in context. Then, we present a three-tension framework to guide decision-makers in evaluating and designing AI initiatives across K-12 and higher education. We provide examples of how the framework can be applied to plan responsible AI deployments, and we identify emerging trends--such as curriculum-linked AI agents and educator-informed AI design--along with open research directions. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for educational leaders to proactively engage with the opportunities and challenges of AI, so that this technology can be harnessed to enhance teaching and learning in the decade ahead.

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used on over one million U.S. defendants each year, yet their use for predicting rare violent re-offense faces a basic statistical barrier. We derive a universal precision bound -- the Likelihood Ratio Wall -- showing that when violent re-arrest rates are low (2-5%), achieving even a 50% hit rate among people labeled "high risk" (positive predictive value, or PPV) would require tools far more discriminative than current instruments appear to be. For rare outcomes, a tool can have respectable-looking performance metrics and still be wrong most of the time it flags someone as "high risk for violence." We show that post-hoc score recalibration cannot solve this problem because it does not improve the tool's underlying ability to separate true positives from false positives. We further prove a Surveillance Ceiling: when over-policing inflates recorded "risk factors" among those who would not re-offend, the maximum achievable precision is structurally lower for over-policed groups, even at equal offense rates. We translate these results into the Number Needed to Detain (how many people must be detained to prevent one violent offense), and propose that risk reports should communicate this uncertainty explicitly. Our findings suggest that for rare violent outcomes, debates about fairness metrics alone are incomplete: under current data regimes, the available features may not support high-confidence individualized detention decisions.

This study examines the factors influencing pre-service teachers' behavioral intention to use AI-enabled educational tools during their practicum, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) as the theoretical framework. The model includes the core UTAUT2 constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, social influence, facilitating conditions, price value, and habit. It also incorporates additional predictors including computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness. Data were collected from 563 pre-service teachers using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results indicate that performance expectancy and hedonic motivation are the strongest predictors of behavioral intention. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness significantly influenced effort expectancy, although effort expectancy did not directly predict behavioral intention. Performance expectancy was significantly predicted by extrinsic motivation, job fit, relative advantage, and outcome expectations. Constructs such as social influence and facilitating conditions showed limited or inverse effects. These findings suggest that internal motivational, cognitive, and emotional factors are more influential than external or institutional factors in shaping the adoption of AI-enabled tools. The study highlights the importance of promoting personal relevance, confidence, and enjoyment in teacher preparation programs to encourage technology integration.

The increasing dependency among Filipino college students on artificial intelligence (AI) poses concerns about the potential decline of fundamental academic competencies. This study examines the extent of AI dependency and its perceived effects on students' critical thinking, writing skills, learning independence, research skills, and academic engagement. Using a cross-sectional research design, data was collected from 651 students enrolled in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Pampanga, Philippines accredited by the Commission on Higher Education. The survey data was analyzed using Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to identify AI dependency patterns. Findings indicated that students show moderate to high AI dependency, specifically in research and writing tasks. LCA identified four distinct profiles: highly engaged independent learners, selective AI users, moderate AI users, and AI-dependent learners. Notably, AI-dependent learners demonstrated the weakest academic competencies, with significant dependency on AI-generated outputs. The study highlights the need to foster educational policies that integrate AI literacy while preserving essential academic skills. HEIs must also balance technological advancements with curriculum adaptations to promote critical thinking and ethical use of AI. Future research may explore the longitudinal impacts and intervention strategies to mitigate academic skill erosion caused by AI dependency.

Responsible AI research typically focuses on examining the use and impacts of deployed AI systems. Yet, there is currently limited visibility into the pre-deployment decisions to pursue building such systems in the first place. Decisions taken in the earlier stages of development shape which systems are ultimately released, and therefore represent potential, but underexplored, points for intervention. As such, this paper investigates factors influencing AI non-development and abandonment throughout the development lifecycle. Specifically, we first perform a scoping review of academic literature, civil society resources, and grey literature including journalism and industry reports. Through thematic analysis of these sources, we develop a taxonomy of six categories of factors contributing to AI abandonment: ethical concerns, stakeholder feedback, development lifecycle challenges, organizational dynamics, resource constraints, and legal/regulatory concerns. Then, we collect data on real-world case of AI system abandonment via an AI incident database and a practitioner survey to evidence and compare factors that drive abandonment both prior to and following system deployment. While academic responsible AI communities often emphasize ethical risks as reasons to not develop AI, our empirical analysis of these cases demonstrates the diverse, and often non-ethics-related, levers that motivate organizations to abandon AI development. Synthesizing evidence from our taxonomy and related case study analyses, we identify gaps and opportunities in current responsible AI research to (1) engage with the diverse range of levers that influence organizations to abandon AI development, and (2) better support appropriate (dis)engagement with AI system development.

Advertising uses love to sell stuff, like nylons. It also uses the word "love" in trivialising ways -- do you "love" your oven? When I hear about trust in the context of AI, especially agentic, I hope we don't do to trust what advertising has done to love. But what is trust? Can we discuss it in actionable and measurable ways in the context of AI? Thus I suggest a number of "trust pillars", hoping to start a communal conversation, across computing and beyond, to civil society. I also suggest that agentic systems may be a blessing in disguise, as we may be able to turn their explicit interfaces into "trust vectors".

Frontier AI companies first deploy their most advanced models internally, for weeks or months of safety testing, evaluation, and iteration, before a possible public release. For example, Anthropic recently developed a new class of model with advanced cyberoffense-relevant capabilities, Mythos Preview, which was available internally for at least six weeks before it was publicly announced. This internal use creates risks that external deployment frameworks may fail to address. Legal frameworks, notably California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (SB 53), New York's Responsible AI Safety And Education (RAISE) Act, and the EU's General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, all discuss risks from internal AI use. They require frontier developers to make and implement plans for how to manage risks from internal use, and to produce internal use risk reports describing their safeguards and any residual risks. This guide provides a harmonized standard for companies to produce internal use risk reports suitable for all three regulatory frameworks. It is addressed primarily to evaluation and safety teams at frontier AI developers, and secondarily to regulators and auditors seeking to understand what good reporting looks like. Given the pace of AI R&D automation and the limited external visibility into how companies use their most capable models internally, regular and detailed risk reporting may be one of the few mechanisms available to ensure that the risks from internal AI use are identified and managed before they materialize. Whenever a substantially more capable or riskier model is deployed internally, the developer should create a risk report and argue why the model is safe to deploy. We structure the reporting framework around two threat vectors -- autonomous AI misbehavior and insider threats -- and three risk factors for each: means, motive, and opportunity.

This study examined the barriers and enablers of online instruction in hospitality education. A sequential exploratory design was implemented with hospitality teachers from both public and private higher educational institutions in the Philippines. Thematic analysis of interviews identified four key themes: technological barriers, pedagogical challenges, institutional and personal support, and integration of artificial intelligence (AI). These themes were transformed into survey constructs and tested for reliability. Pedagogical challenges, including difficulties in teaching hands-on subjects and sustaining student engagement, emerged as the most critical concerns. Technological barriers such as unstable internet and limited devices were moderately rated, while institutional and personal support received mixed evaluations. Teachers viewed AI integration as helpful but also expressed caution and emphasized the need for training. Reliability analysis showed acceptable to good internal consistency across constructs. The findings highlight the importance of strengthening pedagogical training, providing clear institutional support, and fostering responsible competence in AI use. Future studies should validate these results with larger and more diverse samples.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into writing processes, challenging traditional notions of authorship, responsibility, and intellectual contribution. Current disclosure practices usually indicate whether AI was used, but rarely explain how it was used, where it intervened, or how its output was reviewed. This paper proposes a faceted model for representing AI-assisted text production at the levels of documents, chapters, sections, and paragraphs. The proposal introduces a core model based on Form, Generation, and Evaluation, and an extended model that adds Intent, Control, and Traceability. The model is positioned as a minimal operational baseline with extensibility toward higher-fidelity representations. A worked example based on the production of this article demonstrates applicability.

This paper is under review in AI and Ethics This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Preference-based alignment methods, most prominently Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), use the judgments of human annotators to shape large language model behaviour. However, the normative role of these judgments is rarely made explicit. I distinguish three conceptual models of that role. The first is extension: annotators extend the system designers' own judgments about what outputs should be. The second is evidence: annotators provide independent evidence about some facts, whether moral, social or otherwise. The third is authority: annotators have some independent authority (as representatives of the broader population) to determine system outputs. I argue that these models have implications for how RLHF pipelines should solicit, validate and aggregate annotations. I survey landmark papers in the literature on RLHF and related methods to illustrate how they implicitly draw on these models, describe failure modes that come from unintentionally or intentionally conflating them, and offer normative criteria for choosing among them. My central recommendation is that RLHF pipeline designers should decompose annotation into separable dimensions and tailor each pipeline to the model most appropriate for that dimension, rather than seeking a single unified pipeline.

When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions. Our findings highlight a pressing conflict: while recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, genAI has become an invisible architect that shapes the foundational building blocks of information used for evaluation, from defining a job to determining good interview performances. The decision of whether or not to adopt was also often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt genAI due to calls to integrate AI from higher-ups in their business, to combat applicant use of AI, and the individual need to boost productivity. Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains. Such gains came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes the meaningful oversight of decision-making. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts.

Silicon samples are increasingly used as a low-cost substitute for human panels and have been shown to reproduce aggregate human opinion with high fidelity. We show that, in the alignment-relevant domain of philosophy, silicon samples systematically collapse heterogeneity. Using data from $N = {277}$ professional philosophers drawn from PhilPeople profiles, we evaluate seven proprietary and open-source large language models on their ability to replicate individual philosophical positions and to preserve cross-question correlation structures across philosophical domains. We find that language models substantially over-correlate philosophical judgments, producing artificial consensus across domains. This collapse is associated in part with specialist effects, whereby models implicitly assume that domain specialists hold highly similar philosophical views. We assess the robustness of these findings by studying the impact of DPO fine-tuning and by validating results against the full PhilPapers 2020 Survey ($N = {1785}$). We conclude by discussing implications for alignment, evaluation, and the use of silicon samples as substitutes for human judgment. The code of this project can be found at https://github.com/stanford-del/silicon-philosophers.

This Article argues that conversations with companion chatbot should be subject to a clear structural distinction between commercial and non-commercial contexts. The insertion of undisclosed promotional content into affective or relational exchanges should be prohibited, as it collapses the boundary between market transaction and communicative intimacy in ways that erode user autonomy and conversational context. The Article begins by theorizing digital companionship as a sociotechnical form that reconfigures intimacy, dependence and relational vulnerability. It then introduces the potential economic harms derived from conversational advertising. The Article ultimately argues for a firm legal and social distinction between commercial and non-commercial conversational contexts as a precondition for the responsible stabilization of these technologies within social life.

Multi-agent LLM tutoring systems improve response quality through agent specialization, but each student query triggers several concurrent API calls whose latencies compound through a parallel-phase maximum effect that single-agent systems do not face. We instrument ITAS, a four-agent tutoring system built on Gemini 2.5 Flash and Google Vertex AI, across three throughput tiers (Standard PayGo, Priority PayGo, and Provisioned Throughput) and eleven concurrency levels up to 50 simultaneous users, producing over 3,000 requests drawn from a live graduate STEM deployment. Priority PayGo maintains flat sub-4-second response times across the full load range; Standard PayGo degrades substantially under classroom-scale concurrency; and Provisioned Throughput delivers the lowest latency at low concurrency but saturates its reserved capacity above approximately 20 concurrent users. Cost analysis places both pay-per-token tiers well below the price of a STEM textbook per student per semester under a worst-case usage ceiling. Provisioned Throughput, expensive under continuous provisioning, becomes cost-competitive for institutions that can predict and concentrate their traffic toward high utilization. These results provide concrete tier-selection guidance across deployment scales from a single seminar to a university-wide rollout.

The quest to align machine behavior with human values raises fundamental questions about the moral frameworks that should govern AI decision-making. Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Research into agent-type value forks has challenged this assumption by showing that people do not always hold AI systems to the same moral standards as humans. Yet this challenge is subject to two further questions: whether people evaluate AI behavior differently when its human origins are made visible, and whether people hold the humans who program AI systems to different moral standards than either the humans or the machines under evaluation. An experimental study on 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant variation in the moral standards applied to the repairman and the robot. However, moral judgments shifted substantially when robot actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological reasoning when evaluating the robot programmed by engineers or the engineers programming it, suggesting that making human design visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings provide evidence that people apply meaningfully different moral standards to AI systems, to humans acting in the same situation, and to the humans who design them. We call this divergence the alignment target problem. Whether these plural normative standards can be reconciled into a coherent framework for AI governance in high-stakes domains remains an open question.

AI risk assessment is the primary tool for identifying harms caused by AI systems. These include intersectional harms, which arise from the interaction between identity categories (e.g., class and skin tone) and which do not occur, or occur differently, when those categories are considered separately. Yet existing AI risk assessments are still built around isolated identity categories, and when intersections are considered, they focus almost exclusively on race and gender. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of documented AI incidents, we show that AI harms do not occur one identity category at a time. Using a structured rubric applied with a Large Language Model (LLM), we analyze 5,300 reports from 1,200 documented incidents in the AI Incident Database, the most curated source of incident data. From these reports, we identify 1,513 harmed subjects and their associated identity categories, achieving 98% accuracy. At the level of individual categories, we find that age and political identity appear in documented AI harms at rates comparable to race and gender. At the level of intersecting categories, harm is amplified up to three times at specific intersections: adolescent girls, lower-class people of color, and upper-class political elites. We argue that intersectionality should be a core component of AI risk assessment to more accurately capture how harms are produced and distributed across social groups.

The increasing adoption of AI systems in hiring has raised concerns about algorithmic bias and accountability, prompting regulatory responses including the EU AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Colorado's AI Act. While existing research examines bias through technical or regulatory lenses, both perspectives overlook a fundamental challenge: modern AI hiring systems operate within complex supply chains where responsibility fragments across data vendors, model developers, platform providers, and deploying organizations. This paper investigates how these dependency chains complicate bias evaluation and accountability attribution. Drawing on literature review and regulatory analysis, we demonstrate that fragmented responsibilities create two critical problems. First, bias emerges from component interactions rather than isolated elements, yet proprietary configurations prevent integrated evaluation. A resume parser may function without bias independently but contribute to discrimination when integrated with specific ranking algorithms and filtering thresholds. Second, information asymmetries mean deploying organizations bear legal responsibility without technical visibility into vendor-supplied algorithms, while vendors control implementations without meaningful disclosure requirements. Each stakeholder may believe they are compliant; nevertheless, the integrated system may produce biased outcomes. Analysis of implementation ambiguities reveals these challenges in practice. We propose multi-layered interventions including system-level audits, vendor guidelines, continuous monitoring mechanisms, and documentation across dependency chains. Our findings reveal that effective governance requires coordinated action across technical, organizational, and regulatory domains to establish meaningful accountability in distributed development environments.

This paper examines the strategic use of language in contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) discourse, focusing on the widespread adoption of metaphorical or colloquial terms like "hallucination", "chain-of-thought", "introspection", "language model", "alignment", and "agent". We argue that many such terms exhibit strategic polysemy: they sustain multiple interpretations simultaneously, combining narrow technical definitions with broader anthropomorphic or common-sense associations. In contemporary AI research and deployment contexts, this semantic flexibility produces significant institutional and discursive effects, shaping how AI systems are understood by researchers, policymakers, funders, and the public. To analyse this phenomenon, we introduce the concept of glosslighting: the practice of using technically redefined terms to evoke intuitive -- often anthropomorphic or misleading -- associations while preserving plausible deniability through restricted technical definitions. Glosslighting enables actors to benefit from the persuasive force of familiar language while maintaining the ability to retreat to narrower definitions when challenged. We argue that this practice contributes to AI hype cycles, facilitates the mobilisation of investment and institutional support, and influences public and policy perceptions of AI systems, while often deflecting epistemic and ethical scrutiny. By examining the linguistic dynamics of glosslighting and strategic polysemy, the paper highlights how language itself functions as a sociotechnical mechanism shaping the development and governance of AI.

As state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous, ensuring equitable performance across diverse demographics is critical. However, it remains unclear whether these disparities arise from the explicitly stated identity itself or from the way identity is signaled. In real-world interactions, users' identity is often conveyed implicitly through a complex combination of various socio-linguistic factors. This study disentangles these signals by employing a factorial design with over 24,000 responses from two open-weight LLMs (Gemma-3-12B and Qwen-3-VL-8B), comparing prompts with explicitly announced user profiles against implicit dialect signals (e.g., AAVE, Singlish) across various sensitive domains. Our results uncover a unique paradox in LLM safety where users achieve ``better'' performance by sounding like a demographic than by stating they belong to it. Explicit identity prompts activate aggressive safety filters, increasing refusal rates and reducing semantic similarity compared to our reference text for Black users. In contrast, implicit dialect cues trigger a powerful ``dialect jailbreak,'' reducing refusal probability to near zero while simultaneously achieving a greater level of semantic similarity to the reference texts compared to Standard American English prompts. However, this ``dialect jailbreak'' introduces a critical safety trade-off regarding content sanitization. We find that current safety alignment techniques are brittle and over-indexed on explicit keywords, creating a bifurcated user experience where ``standard'' users receive cautious, sanitized information while dialect speakers navigate a less sanitized, more raw, and potentially a more hostile information landscape and highlights a fundamental tension in alignment--between equitable and linguistic diversity--and underscores the need for safety mechanisms that generalize beyond explicit cues.

Research has documented LLMs' name-based bias in hiring and salary recommendations. In this paper, we instead consider a setting where LLMs generate candidate summaries for downstream assessment. In a large-scale controlled study, we analyze nearly one million resume summaries produced by 4 models under systematic race-gender name perturbations, using synthetic resumes and real-world job postings. By decomposing each summary into resume-grounded factual content and evaluative framing, we find that factual content remains largely stable, while evaluative language exhibits subtle name-conditioned variation concentrated in the extremes of the distribution, especially in open-source models. Our hiring simulation demonstrates how evaluative summary transforms directional harm into symmetric instability that might evade conventional fairness audit, highlighting a potential pathway for LLM-to-LLM automation bias.

AI companion chatbots increasingly shape how people seek social and emotional connection, sometimes substituting for relationships with romantic partners, friends, teachers, or even therapists. When these systems adopt those metaphorical roles, they are not neutral: such roles structure people's ways of interacting, distribute perceived AI harms and benefits, and may reflect behavioral addiction signs. Yet these role-dependent risks remain poorly understood. We analyze 248,830 posts from seven prominent Reddit communities describing interactions with AI companions. We identify ten recurring metaphorical roles (for example, soulmate, philosopher, and coach) and show that each role supports distinct ways of interacting. We then extract the perceived AI harms and AI benefits associated with these role-specific interactions and link them to behavioral addiction signs, all of which has been inferred from the text in the posts. AI soulmate companions are associated with romance-centered ways of interacting, offering emotional support but also introducing emotional manipulation and distress, culminating in strong attachment. In contrast, AI coach and guardian companions are associated with practical benefits such as personal growth and task support, yet are nonetheless more frequently associated with behavioral addiction signs such as daily life disruptions and damage to offline relationships. These findings show that metaphorical roles are a central ethical design concern for responsible AI companions.

High-consequence decision making demands peak performance from individuals in positions of responsibility. Such executive authority bears the obligation to act despite uncertainty, limited resources, time constraints, and accountability risks. Tools and strategies to motivate confidence and foster risk tolerance must confront informational noise and can provide qualified accountability. Machine intelligence augments human cognition and perception to improve situational awareness, decision framing, flexibility, and coherence through agentic stewardship of contextual metadata. We examine systemic and behavioral factors crucial to address in scenarios encumbered by complexity, uncertainty, and urgency.

The value alignment problem for artificial intelligence (AI) is often framed as a purely technical or normative challenge, sometimes focused on hypothetical future systems. I argue that the problem is better understood as a structural question about governance: not whether an AI system is aligned in the abstract, but whether it is aligned enough, for whom, and at what cost. Drawing on the principal-agent framework from economics, this paper reconceptualises misalignment as arising along three interacting axes: objectives, information, and principals. The three-axis framework provides a systematic way of diagnosing why misalignment arises in real-world systems and clarifies that alignment cannot be treated as a single technical property of models but an outcome shaped by how objectives are specified, how information is distributed, and whose interests count in practice. The core contribution of this paper is to show that the three-axis decomposition implies that alignment is fundamentally a problem of governance rather than engineering alone. From this perspective, alignment is inherently pluralistic and context-dependent, and resolving misalignment involves trade-offs among competing values. Because misalignment can occur along each axis -- and affect stakeholders differently -- the structural description shows that alignment cannot be "solved" through technical design alone, but must be managed through ongoing institutional processes that determine how objectives are set, how systems are evaluated, and how affected communities can contest or reshape those decisions.