Avsnitt
-
Summary of https://www.kaggle.com/whitepaper-agent-companion
This technical document, the Agents Companion, explores the advancements in generative AI agents, highlighting their architecture composed of models, tools, and an orchestration layer, moving beyond traditional language models.
It emphasizes Agent Ops as crucial for operationalizing these agents, drawing parallels with DevOps and MLOps while addressing agent-specific needs like tool management.
The paper thoroughly examines agent evaluation methodologies, covering capability assessment, trajectory analysis, final response evaluation, and the importance of human-in-the-loop feedback alongside automated metrics. Furthermore, it discusses the benefits and challenges of multi-agent systems, outlining various design patterns and their application, particularly within automotive AI.
Finally, the Companion introduces Agentic RAG as an evolution in knowledge retrieval and presents Google Agentspace as a platform for developing and managing enterprise-level AI agents, even proposing the concept of "Contract adhering agents" for more robust task execution.
Agent Ops is Essential: Building successful agents requires more than just a proof-of-concept; it necessitates embracing Agent Ops principles, which integrate best practices from DevOps and MLOps, while also focusing on agent-specific elements such as tool management, orchestration, memory, and task decomposition.Metrics Drive Improvement: To build, monitor, and compare agent revisions, it is critical to start with business-level Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and then instrument agents to track granular metrics related to critical tasks, user interactions, and agent actions (traces). Human feedback is also invaluable for understanding where agents excel and need improvement.Automated Evaluation is Key: Relying solely on manual testing is insufficient. Implementing automated evaluation frameworks is crucial to assess an agent's core capabilities, its trajectory (the steps taken to reach a solution, including tool use), and the quality of its final response. Techniques like exact match, in-order match, and precision/recall are useful for trajectory evaluation, while autoraters (LLMs acting as judges) can assess final response quality.Human-in-the-Loop is Crucial: While automated metrics are powerful, human evaluation provides essential context, particularly for subjective aspects like creativity, common sense, and nuance. Human feedback should be used to calibrate and validate automated evaluation methods, ensuring alignment with desired outcomes and preventing the outsourcing of domain knowledge.Multi-Agent Systems Offer Advantages: For complex tasks, consider leveraging multi-agent architectures. These systems can enhance accuracy through cross-checking, improve efficiency through parallel processing, better handle intricate problems by breaking them down, increase scalability by adding specialized agents, and improve fault tolerance. Understanding different design patterns like sequential, hierarchical, collaborative, and competitive is important for choosing the right architecture for a given application. -
Summary of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23674
Researchers Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen investigated whether advanced large language models (LLMs) can pass the standard three-party Turing test. Their study involved human interrogators conversing with both a human and an AI, then judging which was human.
The findings indicate that GPT-4.5, when prompted to adopt a persona, was identified as human significantly more often than the actual human participant, marking the first empirical evidence of an AI passing this rigorous version of the test.
While other models like LLaMa-3.1 showed some human-like qualities, only the persona-prompted models consistently fooled human judges. The study also explored the strategies used by interrogators and the implications of these results for our understanding of AI capabilities and their societal impact.
This study provides the first empirical evidence that a Large Language Model (LLM), specifically GPT-4.5 when prompted to adopt a humanlike persona, can pass a standard three-party Turing test. In the study, GPT-4.5-PERSONA was judged as human 73% of the time, significantly more often than the actual human participants.Prompting with a humanlike persona was crucial for success. While GPT-4.5-PERSONA and LLAMA-PERSONA were not reliably distinguished from humans, the same models without the persona prompt (GPT-4.5-NO-PERSONA and LLAMA-NO-PERSONA) performed significantly worse, often being identified as AI at rates significantly below chance in the undergraduate study.The study compared the performance of several AI systems, including GPT-4.5, LLaMa-3.1-405B, GPT-4o, and ELIZA. The baseline models, GPT-4o-NO-PERSONA and ELIZA, had significantly lower win rates, indicating that interrogators could generally distinguish them from humans. This suggests the interrogators were not simply guessing randomly.The research indicates that interrogators often relied on social, emotional, and linguistic cues rather than traditional measures of knowledge and reasoning when trying to distinguish between humans and AI. Interestingly, providing strange prompts or using "jailbreaks" was the most effective strategy for interrogators, while asking about the weather or human experiences was least effective.The findings have significant social and economic implications, suggesting that contemporary LLMs could potentially substitute for humans in short conversations, raising concerns about deception, misinformation, and the potential undermining of real human interaction. The study also found that general knowledge about LLMs and frequent chatbot interaction did not consistently improve participants' ability to distinguish AI from humans. -
Summary of https://imaginingthedigitalfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Being-Human-in-2035-ITDF-report.pdf
This Elon University Imagining the Digital Future Center report compiles insights from a non-scientific canvassing of technology pioneers, builders, and analysts regarding the potential shifts in human capacities and behaviors by 2035 due to advanced AI. Experts anticipate blurred boundaries between reality and fiction, human and artificial intelligence, and human and synthetic creations, alongside concerns about eroding individual identity, autonomy, and critical thinking skills.
The report explores both optimistic visions of AI augmenting human potential and creativity and pessimistic scenarios involving increased dependence, social division, and the erosion of essential human qualities like empathy and moral judgment. Ultimately, it highlights the critical need for ethical development, regulation, and education to navigate the profound societal changes anticipated in the coming decade.
A significant majority of experts anticipate deep and meaningful or even fundamental and revolutionary change in people’s native operating systems and operations as humans broadly adapt to and use advanced AI by 2035.
Experts predict mostly negative changes in several core human traits and behaviors by 2035, including social and emotional intelligence, the capacity for deep thinking, trust in shared values, empathy, mental well-being, sense of agency, and sense of identity and purpose.
Conversely, pluralities of experts expect mostly positive changes in human curiosity and capacity to learn, decision-making and problem-solving abilities, and innovative thinking and creativity due to interactions with AI.
Many experts express concern about the potential for AI to be used in ways that de-augment humanity, serving the interests of tool builders and those in power, potentially leading to a global sociotechnical dystopia. However, they also see the potential for AI to augment human intelligence and bring about universal enlightenment if the direction of development changes.
The experts underscore the critical importance of how humans choose to integrate AI into their lives and societies. They emphasize the need for ethical considerations, human-centered design, the establishment of human values in AI development and policy, and the preservation of human agency to ensure AI serves humanity's flourishing rather than diminishing essential human capacities.
-
Summary of https://www.bain.com/globalassets/noindex/2025/bain_article_nvidia_gtc_2025_ai_matures_into_enterprise_infrastructure.pdf
Nvidia's GTC 2025 highlighted a significant shift in AI, moving from experimental phases to becoming core enterprise infrastructure. The event showcased how data remains crucial, but AI itself is now a data generator, leading to new insights and efficiencies.
Furthermore, smaller, specialized AI models are gaining prominence, offering cost advantages and improved control. While fully autonomous AI agents are still rare, structured semi-autonomous systems with human oversight are becoming standard.
Finally, the conference underscored the growing importance of digital twins, video analytics, and accessible off-the-shelf tools in democratizing enterprise AI adoption and fostering cross-functional collaboration through simulation.
AI has matured beyond pilot projects and is now being deployed at scale within the core operations of enterprises. Companies are re-architecting how they compete by moving AI from innovation teams into the business core.Data remains both a critical challenge and a significant opportunity for AI success. Successful AI deployments rely on clean, connected, and accessible data. Furthermore, AI is now generating a new layer of data through insights and generative applications.The trend is shifting towards smaller, specialized AI models that are more cost-effective and offer better control, latency, and privacy. Techniques like quantization, pruning, and RAG are facilitating this shift, although deploying and managing these custom models presents new operational complexities.Agentic AI is gaining traction, but its successful implementation hinges on structure, transparency, and human oversight. While fully autonomous agents are rare, semiautonomous systems with built-in safeguards and orchestration platforms are becoming the near-term standard.Digital twins and simulation have moved from innovation showcases to everyday enterprise tools, enabling faster rollout cycles, lower risk, and more informed decision-making. Simulation is also evolving into a collaboration platform for cross-functional teams. -
Summary of https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/methods.html
Introduces a novel methodology called "circuit tracing" to understand the inner workings of language models. The authors developed a technique using "replacement models" with interpretable components to map the computational steps of a language model as "attribution graphs." These graphs visually represent how different computational units, or "features," interact to process information and generate output for specific prompts.
The research details the construction, visualization, and validation of these graphs using an 18-layer model and offers a preview of their application to a more advanced model, Claude 3.5 Haiku. The study explores the interpretability and sufficiency of this method through various evaluations, including case studies on acronym generation and addition.
While acknowledging limitations like missing attention circuits and reconstruction errors, the authors propose circuit tracing as a significant step towards achieving mechanistic interpretability in large language models.
This paper introduces a methodology for revealing computational graphs in language models using Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) to extract interpretable features and construct attribution graphs that depict how these features interact to produce model outputs for specific prompts. This approach aims to bridge the gap between raw neurons and high-level model behaviors by identifying meaningful building blocks and their interactions.
The methodology involves several key steps: training CLTs to reconstruct MLP outputs, building attribution graphs with nodes representing active features, tokens, errors, and logits, and edges representing linear effects between these nodes. A crucial aspect is achieving linearity in feature interactions by freezing attention patterns and normalization denominators. Attribution graphs allow for the study of how information flows from the input prompt through intermediate features to the final output token.
The paper demonstrates the application of this methodology through several case studies, including acronym generation, factual recall, and small number addition. These case studies illustrate how attribution graphs can reveal the specific features and pathways involved in different cognitive tasks performed by language models. For instance, in the addition case study, the method uncovers a hierarchy of heuristic features that collaboratively solve the task.
Despite the advancements, the methodology has several significant limitations. A key limitation is the missing explanation of how attention patterns are formed and how they mediate feature interactions (QK-circuits), as the analysis is conducted with fixed attention patterns. Other limitations include reconstruction errors (unexplained model computation), the role of inactive features and inhibitory circuits, the complexity of the resulting graphs, and the difficulty of understanding global circuits that generalize across many prompts.
The paper also explores the concept of global weights between features, which are prompt-independent and aim to capture general algorithms used by the replacement model. However, interpreting these global weights is challenging due to issues like interference (spurious connections) and the lack of accounting for attention-mediated interactions. While attribution graphs provide insights on specific prompts, future work aims to enhance the understanding of global mechanisms and address current limitations, potentially through advancements in dictionary learning and handling of attention mechanisms.
-
Summary of https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA100/RRA134-25/RAND_RRA134-25.pdf
A RAND Corporation report, utilizing surveys from the 2023-2024 school year, investigates the adoption and use of artificial intelligence tools by K-12 public school teachers and principals. The research highlights that roughly one-quarter of teachers reported using AI for instructional planning or teaching, with higher usage among ELA and science teachers and those in lower-poverty schools.
Simultaneously, nearly 60 percent of principals indicated using AI in their jobs, primarily for administrative tasks like drafting communications. The study also found that guidance and support for AI use were less prevalent in higher-poverty schools for both educators, suggesting potential inequities in AI integration. Ultimately, the report underscores the emerging role of AI in education and recommends developing strategies and further research to ensure its effective and equitable implementation.
A significant portion of educators are using AI tools, but there's considerable variation. Approximately one-quarter of teachers reported using AI tools for instructional planning or teaching, with higher rates among ELA and science teachers, as well as secondary teachers. Notably, nearly 60 percent of principals reported using AI tools in their jobs. However, usage differed by subject taught and school characteristics, with teachers and principals in higher-poverty schools being less likely to report using AI tools.Teachers primarily use AI for instructional planning, while principals focus on administrative tasks. Teachers most commonly reported using AI to generate lesson materials, assess students, and differentiate instruction. Principals primarily used AI to draft communications, support other school administrative tasks, and assist with teacher hiring, evaluation, or professional learning.Disparities exist in AI adoption and support based on school poverty levels. Teachers and principals in lower-poverty schools were more likely to use AI and reported receiving more guidance on its use compared to their counterparts in higher-poverty schools. Furthermore, schools in higher-poverty areas were less likely to be developing AI usage policies. This suggests a widening gap in AI integration and the potential for unequal access to its benefits.Educators have several concerns regarding AI use, including a lack of professional learning and data privacy. Principals identified a lack of professional development, concerns about data privacy, and uncertainty about how to use AI as major influences on their AI adoption. Teachers also expressed mixed perceptions about AI's helpfulness, noting the need to assess the quality of AI output and potential for errors.The report highlights the need for intentional strategies and further research to effectively integrate AI in education. The authors recommend that districts and schools develop strategies to support AI use in ways that improve instruction and learning, focusing on AI's potential for differentiated instruction, practice opportunities, and student engagement. They also emphasize the importance of research to identify effective AI applications and address disparities in access and guidance, particularly for higher-poverty schools. -
Summary of https://hai-production.s3.amazonaws.com/files/hai-issue-brief-expanding-academia-role-public-sector.pdf
Stanford HAI highlights a growing disparity between academia and industry in frontier AI research. Industry's access to vast resources like data and computing power allows them to outpace universities in developing advanced AI systems.
The authors argue that this imbalance risks hindering public-interest AI innovation and weakening the talent pipeline. To address this, the brief proposes increased public investment in academic AI, the adoption of collaborative research models, and the creation of new government-backed academic institutions. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure academia plays a vital role in shaping the future of AI in a way that benefits society.
Academia is currently lagging behind industry in frontier AI research because no university possesses the resources to build AI systems comparable to those in the private sector. This is largely due to industry's access to massive datasets and significantly greater computational power.Industry's dominance in AI development is driven by its unprecedented computational resources, vast datasets, and top-tier talent, leading to AI models that are considerably larger than those produced by academia. This resource disparity has become a substantial barrier to entry for academic researchers.For AI to be developed responsibly and in the public interest, it is crucial for governments to increase investment in public sector AI, with academia at the forefront of training future innovators and advancing cutting-edge scientific research. Historically, academia has been the source of foundational AI technologies and prioritizes public benefit over commercial gain.The significant cost of developing advanced AI models has created a major divide between industry and academia. The expense of computational resources required for state-of-the-art models has grown exponentially, making it challenging for academics to meaningfully contribute to their development.The growing resource gap in funding, computational power, and talent between academia and industry is concerning because it restricts independent, public-interest AI research, weakens the future talent pipeline by incentivizing students to join industry, and can skew AI policy discussions in favor of well-funded private sector interests. -
Summary of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.12447
Explores the rapidly evolving influence of Generative AI on human cognition, examining its effects on how we think, learn, reason, and engage with information. Synthesizing existing research, the authors analyze these impacts through the lens of educational frameworks like Bloom's Taxonomy and Dewey's reflective thought theory.
The work identifies potential benefits and significant concerns, particularly regarding critical thinking and knowledge retention among novices. Ultimately, it proposes implications for educators and test designers and suggests future research directions to understand the long-term cognitive consequences of AI.
Generative AI (GenAI) is rapidly reshaping human cognition, influencing how we engage with information, think, reason, and learn. This adoption is happening at a much faster rate compared to previous technological advancements like the internet.While GenAI offers potential benefits such as increased productivity, enhanced creativity, and improved learning experiences, there are significant concerns about its potential long-term detrimental effects on essential cognitive abilities, particularly critical thinking and reasoning. The paper primarily focuses on these negative impacts, especially on novices like students.GenAI's impact on cognition can be understood through frameworks like Krathwohl’s revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Dewey’s conceptualization of reflective thought. GenAI can accelerate access to knowledge but may bypass the cognitive processes necessary for deeper understanding and the development of metacognitive skills. It can also disrupt the prerequisites for reflective thought by diminishing cognitive dissonance, reinforcing existing beliefs, and creating an illusion of comprehensive understanding.Over-reliance on GenAI can lead to 'cognitive offloading' and 'metacognitive laziness', where individuals delegate cognitive tasks to AI, reducing their own cognitive engagement and hindering the development of critical thinking and self-regulation. This is particularly concerning for novice learners who have less experience with diverse cognitive strategies.To support thinking and learning in the AI era, there is a need to rethink educational experiences and design 'tools for thought' that foster critical and evaluative skills. This includes minimizing AI use in the early stages of learning to encourage productive struggle, emphasizing critical evaluation of AI outputs in curricula and tests, and promoting active engagement with GenAI tools through methods like integrating cognitive schemas and using metacognitive prompts. The paper also highlights the need for long-term research on the sustained cognitive effects of AI use. -
Summary of https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.02061
Introduces the "Alice in Wonderland" (AIW) problem, a seemingly simple common-sense reasoning task, to evaluate the capabilities of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs). The authors demonstrate that even advanced models like GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus exhibit a dramatic breakdown in generalization and basic reasoning when faced with minor variations of the AIW problem that do not alter its core structure or difficulty.
This breakdown is characterized by low average performance and significant fluctuations in accuracy across these variations, alongside overconfident, yet incorrect, explanations. The study further reveals that standardized benchmarks fail to detect these limitations, suggesting a potential overestimation of current LLM reasoning abilities, possibly due to data contamination or insufficient challenge diversity.
Ultimately, the AIW problem is presented as a valuable tool for uncovering fundamental weaknesses in LLMs' generalization and reasoning skills that are not apparent in current evaluation methods.
Despite achieving high scores on various standardized benchmarks, many state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit surprisingly low correct response rates on the seemingly simple "Alice has brothers and sisters" (AIW) problem and its variations. Only a few large-scale closed models like GPT-4o and Claude 3 Opus show relatively better performance, while many others, including models claiming strong function, struggle significantly, sometimes even collapsing to a zero correct response rate.
The document highlights a significant discrepancy between the performance of LLMs on standardized reasoning benchmarks and on the AIW problem, suggesting that current benchmarks may not accurately reflect true generalization and basic reasoning skills. Models that score highly on benchmarks like MMLU, MATH, ARC-c, GSM8K, and HellaSwag often perform poorly on AIW, indicating a potential issue with the benchmarks' ability to detect fundamental deficits in model function. This suggests that these benchmarks might suffer from issues like test data leakage.
A key observation is the lack of robustness in SOTA LLMs, evidenced by strong performance fluctuations across structure and difficulty-preserving variations of the same AIW problem. Even slight changes in the numerical values within the problem statement can lead to drastically different correct response rates for many models. This sensitivity to minor variations points to underlying generalization deficits.
The study reveals that LLMs often exhibit overconfidence and provide persuasive, explanation-like confabulations even when their answers to AIW problems are incorrect. This can mislead users into trusting wrong responses, especially in situations where verification is difficult. Furthermore, many models struggle to properly detect mistakes and revise their incorrect solutions, even when encouraged to do so.
The AIW problem and its variations are presented as valuable tools for evaluating the robustness and generalization capabilities of LLMs, offering a method to reveal weaknesses that are not captured by standard benchmarks. The ability to create numerous diverse problem instances through variations addresses potential test set leakage issues. The introduction of a unified robustness score (R) is proposed to provide a more accurate model ranking by considering both average correct response rate and the degree of performance fluctuations across problem variations.
-
Summary of https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-2e2025.pdf
This NIST report explores the landscape of adversarial machine learning (AML), categorizing attacks and corresponding defenses for both traditional (predictive) and modern generative AI systems.
It establishes a taxonomy and terminology to create a common understanding of threats like data poisoning, evasion, privacy breaches, and prompt injection. The document also highlights key challenges and limitations in current AML research and mitigation strategies, emphasizing the trade-offs between security, accuracy, and other desirable AI characteristics. Ultimately, the report aims to inform standards and practices for managing the security risks associated with the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.
This report establishes a taxonomy and defines terminology for the field of Adversarial Machine Learning (AML). The aim is to create a common language within the rapidly evolving AML landscape to inform future standards and practice guides for securing AI systems.
The report provides separate taxonomies for attacks targeting Predictive AI (PredAI) systems and Generative AI (GenAI) systems. These taxonomies categorize attacks based on attacker goals and objectives (availability breakdown, integrity violation, privacy compromise, and misuse enablement for GenAI), attacker capabilities, attacker knowledge, and the stages of the machine learning lifecycle.
The report describes various AML attack classes relevant to both PredAI and GenAI, including evasion, poisoning (data and model poisoning), privacy attacks (such as data reconstruction, membership inference, and model extraction), and GenAI-specific attacks like direct and indirect prompt injection, and supply chain attacks. For each attack class, the report discusses existing mitigation methods and their limitations.
The report identifies key challenges in the field of AML. These challenges include the inherent trade-offs between different attributes of trustworthy AI (e.g., accuracy and adversarial robustness), theoretical limitations on achieving perfect adversarial robustness, and the complexities of evaluating the effectiveness of mitigations across the diverse and evolving AML landscape. Factors like the scale of AI models, supply chain vulnerabilities, and multimodal capabilities further complicate these challenges.
Managing the security of AI systems requires a comprehensive approach that combines AML-specific mitigations with established cybersecurity best practices. Understanding the relationship between these fields and identifying any unique security considerations for AI that fall outside their scope is crucial for organizations seeking to secure their AI deployments.
-
Summary of https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20539517241299732
Explores the emerging field of artificial intelligence ethics auditing, examining its rapid growth and current state through interviews with 34 professionals. It finds that while AI ethics audits often mirror financial auditing processes, they currently lack robust stakeholder involvement, clear success metrics, and external reporting.
The study highlights a predominant technical focus on bias, privacy, and explainability, often driven by impending regulations like the EU AI Act. Auditors face challenges including regulatory ambiguity, resource constraints, and organizational complexity, yet they play a vital role in developing frameworks and interpreting standards within this evolving landscape.
AI ethics auditing is an emerging field that mirrors financial auditing in its process (planning, performing, and reporting) but currently lacks robust stakeholder involvement, measurement of success, and external reporting. These audits are often hyper-focused on technical AI ethics principles like bias, privacy, and explainability, potentially neglecting broader socio-technical considerations.Regulatory requirements and reputational risk are the primary drivers for organizations to engage in AI ethics audits. The EU AI Act is frequently mentioned as a significant upcoming regulation influencing the field. While reputational concerns can be a motivator, a more sustainable approach involves recognizing the intrinsic value of ethical AI for performance and user trust.Conducting AI ethics audits is fraught with challenges, including ambiguity in interpreting preliminary and piecemeal regulations, a lack of established best practices, organizational complexity, resource constraints, insufficient technical and data infrastructure, and difficulties in interdisciplinary coordination. Many organizations are not yet adequately prepared to undergo effective AI audits due to a lack of AI governance frameworks.The AI ethics auditing ecosystem is still in development, characterized by ambiguity between auditing and consulting activities, and a lack of standardized measures for quality and accredited procedures. Despite these limitations, AI ethics auditors play a crucial role as "ecosystem builders and translators" by developing frameworks, interpreting regulations, and curating practices for auditees, regulators, and other stakeholders.Significant gaps exist in the AI ethics audit ecosystem regarding the measurement of audit success, effective and public reporting of findings, and broader stakeholder engagement beyond technical and risk professionals. There is a need for more emphasis on defining success metrics, increasing transparency through external reporting, and actively involving diverse stakeholders, including the public and vulnerable groups, in the auditing process. -
Summary of https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-04018-w
Investigates how the increasing use of artificial intelligence in organizations affects employee mental health, specifically job stress and burnout. The study of South Korean professionals revealed that AI adoption indirectly increases burnout by first elevating job stress.
Importantly, the research found that employees with higher self-efficacy in learning AI experience less job stress related to AI implementation. The findings underscore the need for organizations to manage job stress and foster AI learning confidence to support employee well-being during technological change. Ultimately, this work highlights the complex relationship between AI integration and its psychological impact on the workforce.
AI adoption in organizations does not directly lead to employee burnout. Instead, its impact is indirect, operating through the mediating role of job stress. AI adoption significantly increases job stress, which in turn increases burnout.Self-efficacy in AI learning plays a crucial role in moderating the relationship between AI adoption and job stress. Employees with higher self-efficacy in their ability to learn AI experience a weaker positive relationship between AI adoption and job stress. This means that confidence in learning AI can buffer against the stress induced by AI adoption.The findings emphasize the importance of a human-centric approach to AI adoption in the workplace. Organizations need to proactively address the potential negative impact of AI adoption on employee well-being by implementing strategies to manage job stress and foster self-efficacy in AI learning.Investing in AI training and development programs is essential for enhancing employees' self-efficacy in AI learning. By boosting their confidence in understanding and utilizing AI technologies, organizations can mitigate the negative effects of AI adoption on employee stress and burnout.This study contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence for the indirect impact of AI adoption on burnout through job stress and the moderating role of self-efficacy in AI learning, utilizing the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) as theoretical frameworks. This enhances the understanding of the psychological mechanisms involved in the relationship between AI adoption and employee mental health. -
Summary of https://www.eciia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-AI-Act-Road-to-Compliance-Final-1.pdf
"The AI Act: Road to Compliance," serves as a practical guide for internal auditors navigating the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, which entered into force in August 2024. It outlines the key aspects of the AI Act, including its risk-based approach that categorizes AI systems and imposes varying obligations based on risk levels, as well as the different roles of entities within the AI value chain, such as providers and deployers.
The guide details the implementation timeline of the Act and the corresponding obligations and requirements for organizations. Furthermore, it presents survey results from over 40 companies regarding their AI adoption, compliance preparations, and the internal audit function's understanding and auditing of AI. Ultimately, the document emphasizes the crucial role of internal auditors in ensuring their organizations achieve compliance and responsibly manage AI risks.
The EU AI Act is now in force (August 1, 2024) and employs a risk-based approach to regulate AI systems, categorizing them into unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal risk levels, with increasing obligations corresponding to higher risk. There's also a specific category for General Purpose AI (GPAI) models, with additional requirements for those deemed to have systemic risk.
Organizations involved with AI systems have different roles (provider, deployer, importer, distributor, authorised representative), each with distinct responsibilities and compliance requirements under the AI Act. The provider and deployer are the primary roles, with providers facing more extensive obligations.
Compliance with the AI Act has a phased implementation timeline with key dates starting from February 2025 (prohibited AI systems) through August 2027 (high-risk AI components in products). Organizations need to start preparing by creating AI inventories, classifying systems by risk, and establishing appropriate policies.
Internal auditors play a vital role in helping organizations achieve compliance with the AI Act by assessing AI risks, auditing AI processes and governance, and making recommendations. They need to ensure the implementation of AI Act requirements within their organizations.
A recent survey of over 40 companies revealed widespread AI adoption but a relatively low level of understanding of the AI Act within internal audit departments. Most internal audit departments are not yet leveraging AI, but when they do, it's mainly for risk assessment. Ensuring adequate AI auditing skills through training is highlighted as a need.
-
Summary of https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188231
This working paper details a field experiment examining the impact of generative AI on teamwork and expertise within Procter & Gamble. The study involved 776 professionals working on real product innovation challenges, randomly assigned to individual or team settings with or without AI assistance.
The research investigated how AI affects performance, expertise sharing across functional silos, and the social and emotional aspects of collaboration. Findings indicate that AI significantly enhances performance, allowing individuals with AI to match the output quality of traditional human teams. Moreover, AI facilitates the creation of more balanced solutions, regardless of professional background, and fosters more positive emotional responses among users.
Ultimately, the paper suggests that AI functions as a "cybernetic teammate," prompting organizations to reconsider team structures and the nature of collaborative work in the age of intelligent machines.
AI significantly enhances performance in knowledge work, with individuals using AI achieving a level of solution quality comparable to two-person teams without AI. This suggests that AI can effectively replicate certain benefits of human collaboration in terms of output quality.AI breaks down functional silos and broadens expertise. Professionals using AI produced more balanced solutions that spanned both commercial and technical aspects, regardless of their professional background (R&D or Commercial). AI can also help individuals with less experience in product development achieve performance levels similar to teams with experienced members.AI fosters positive emotional responses among users. Participants reported more positive emotions (excitement, energy, enthusiasm) and fewer negative emotions (anxiety, frustration) when working with AI compared to working alone without AI, matching or even exceeding the emotional benefits traditionally associated with human teamwork.AI-augmented teams have a higher likelihood of generating exceptional, top-tier solutions. Teams working with AI were significantly more likely to produce solutions ranking in the top 10% of all submissions, indicating that the combination of human collaboration and AI can be particularly powerful for achieving breakthrough innovations.AI is not merely a tool but functions as a "cybernetic teammate" that reshapes collaboration. It dynamically interacts with human problem-solvers, provides real-time feedback, bridges expertise boundaries, and influences emotional states, suggesting a fundamental shift in how knowledge work can be structured and carried out. -
Summary of https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167811625000114
Presents a meta-analysis of two decades of studies examining consumer resistance to artificial intelligence (AI). The authors synthesize findings from hundreds of studies with over 76,000 participants, revealing that AI aversion is context-dependent and varies based on the AI's label, application domain, and perceived characteristics.
Interestingly, the study finds that negative consumer responses have decreased over time, particularly for cognitive evaluations of AI. Furthermore, the meta-analysis indicates that research design choices influence observed AI resistance, with studies using more ecologically valid methods showing less aversion.
Consumers exhibit an overall small but statistically significant aversion to AI (average Cohen’s d = -0.21). This means that, on average, people tend to respond more negatively to outputs or decisions labeled as coming from AI compared to those labeled as coming from humans.
Consumer aversion to AI is strongly context-dependent, varying significantly by the AI label and the application domain. Embodied forms of AI, such as robots, elicit the most negative responses (d = -0.83) compared to AI assistants or mere algorithms. Furthermore, domains involving higher stakes and risks, like transportation and public safety, trigger more negative responses than domains focused on productivity and performance, such as business and management.
Consumer responses to AI are not static and have evolved over time, generally becoming less negative, particularly for cognitive evaluations (e.g., performance or competence judgements). While initial excitement around generative AI in 2021 led to a near null-effect in cognitive evaluations, affective and behavioral responses still remain significantly negative overall.
The characteristics ascribed to AI significantly influence consumer responses. Negative responses are stronger when AI is described as having high autonomy (d = -0.28), inferior performance (d = -0.53), lacking human-like cues (anthropomorphism) (d = -0.23), and not recognizing the user's uniqueness (d = -0.24). Conversely, limiting AI autonomy, highlighting superior performance, incorporating anthropomorphic cues, and emphasizing uniqueness recognition can alleviate AI aversion.
The methodology used to study AI aversion impacts the findings. Studies with greater ecological validity, such as field studies, those using incentive-compatible designs, perceptually rich stimuli, clear explanations of AI, and behavioral (rather than self-report) measures, document significantly smaller aversion towards AI. This suggests that some documented resistance in purely hypothetical lab settings might be an overestimation of real-world aversion.
-
Summary of https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/putting-explainable-ai-to-the-test-a-critical-look-at-ai-evaluation-approaches/
This Center for Security and Emerging Technology issue brief examines how researchers evaluate explainability and interpretability in AI-enabled recommendation systems. The authors' literature review reveals inconsistencies in defining these terms and a primary focus on assessing system correctness (building systems right) over system effectiveness (building the right systems for users).
They identified five common evaluation approaches used by researchers, noting a strong preference for case studies and comparative evaluations. Ultimately, the brief suggests that without clearer standards and expertise in evaluating AI safety, policies promoting explainable AI may fall short of their intended impact.
Researchers do not clearly differentiate between explainability and interpretability when describing these concepts in the context of AI-enabled recommendation systems. The descriptions of these principles in research papers often use a combination of similar themes. This lack of consistent definition can lead to confusion and inconsistent application of these principles.The study identified five common evaluation approaches used by researchers for explainability claims: case studies, comparative evaluations, parameter tuning, surveys, and operational evaluations. These approaches can assess either system correctness (whether the system is built according to specifications) or system effectiveness (whether the system works as intended in the real world).Research papers show a strong preference for evaluations of system correctness over evaluations of system effectiveness. Case studies, comparative evaluations, and parameter tuning, which are primarily focused on testing system correctness, were the most common approaches. In contrast, surveys and operational evaluations, which aim to test system effectiveness, were less prevalent.Researchers adopt various descriptive approaches for explainability, which can be categorized into descriptions that rely on other principles (like transparency), focus on technical implementation, state the purpose as providing a rationale for recommendations, or articulate the intended outcomes of explainable systems.The findings suggest that policies for implementing or evaluating explainable AI may not be effective without clear standards and expert guidance. Policymakers are advised to invest in standards for AI safety evaluations and develop a workforce capable of assessing the efficacy of these evaluations in different contexts to ensure reported evaluations provide meaningful information. -
Summary of https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-038_51f8444f-502c-4139-8bf2-56eb4b65c58a.pdf
Investigates the economic value of open source software (OSS) by estimating both the supply-side (creation cost) and the significantly larger demand-side (usage value). Utilizing unique global data on OSS usage by firms, the authors calculate the cost to recreate widely used OSS and the replacement value for firms if OSS did not exist.
Their findings reveal a substantial multi-trillion dollar demand-side value, far exceeding the billions needed for recreation, highlighting OSS's critical, often unmeasured, role in the modern economy. The study also examines the concentration of value creation among a small percentage of developers and the distribution of OSS value across different programming languages and industries.
This study estimates that the demand-side value of widely-used open source software (OSS) is significantly larger than its supply-side value. The researchers estimate the supply-side value (the cost to recreate the most widely used OSS once) to be $4.15 billion, while the demand-side value (the replacement value for each firm that uses the software and would need to build it internally if OSS did not exist) is estimated to be much larger at $8.8 trillion. This highlights the substantial economic benefit derived from the reuse of OSS by numerous firms.
The research reveals substantial heterogeneity in the value of OSS across different programming languages. For example, in terms of demand-side value, Go is estimated to be more than four times the value of the next language, JavaScript, while Python has a considerably lower value among the top languages analyzed. This indicates that the economic impact of OSS is not evenly distributed across the programming language landscape.
The study finds a high concentration in the creation of OSS value, with only a small fraction of developers contributing the vast majority of the value. Specifically, it's estimated that 96% of the demand-side value is created by only 5% of OSS developers. These top contributors also tend to contribute to a substantial number of repositories, suggesting their impact is broad across the OSS ecosystem.
Measuring the value of OSS is inherently difficult due to its non-pecuniary (free) nature and the lack of centralized usage tracking. This study addresses this challenge by leveraging unique global data from two complementary sources: the Census II of Free and Open Source Software – Application Libraries and the BuiltWith dataset, which together capture OSS usage by millions of global firms. By focusing on widely-used OSS, the study aims to provide a more precise understanding of its value compared to studies that estimate the replacement cost of all existing OSS.
The estimated demand-side value of OSS suggests that if it did not exist, firms would need to spend approximately 3.5 times more on software than they currently do. This underscores the massive cost savings and productivity enhancement that the existence of OSS provides to the economy. The study argues that recognizing this value is crucial for the future health of the digital economy and for informing policymakers about the importance of supporting the OSS ecosystem.
-
Summary of https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/cgri-closer-look-110-ai.pdf
Examines the potential impact of artificial intelligence on corporate boardrooms and governance. It argues that while AI's influence on areas like decision-making is acknowledged, its capacity to reshape the operations and practices of the board itself warrants greater attention.
The authors explore how AI could alter board functions, information processing, interactions with management, and the role of advisors, while also considering the challenges of maintaining board-management boundaries and managing information access. Ultimately, the piece discusses how AI could transform various governance obligations and presents both the benefits and risks associated with its adoption in the boardroom.
AI has the potential to significantly transform corporate governance by reshaping how boards function, process information, interact with management and advisors, and fulfill specific governance obligations. Boards are already aware of AI's potential, ranking its increased use across the organization as a top priority.
AI can reduce the information asymmetry between the board and management by increasing the volume, type, and quality of information available to directors. This allows boards to be more proactive and less reliant on management-provided information, potentially leading to better oversight. AI tools can enable directors to search and synthesize public and private information more easily.
The adoption of AI will significantly increase the expectations and responsibilities of board members. Directors will be expected to spend more time preparing for meetings by reviewing and analyzing a greater quantity of information. They will also be expected to ask higher-quality questions and provide deeper insights, leveraging AI tools for analysis and benchmarking.
AI can enhance various governance functions, including strategy, compensation, human capital management, audit, legal matters, and board evaluations. For example, AI can facilitate richer scenario planning, provide real-time compensation benchmarking, identify skills gaps in human capital, detect potential fraud, monitor legal developments, and analyze board effectiveness. This may also lead to a supplementation or replacement of work currently done by paid advisors.
The integration of AI into the boardroom also presents several risks and challenges, including maintaining the separation of board and management responsibilities, managing information access, ensuring data security, addressing the potential for errors and biases in AI models, and avoiding "analysis paralysis". Boards will need to develop new protocols and skills to effectively utilize AI while mitigating these risks.
-
Summary of https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5097445
This working paper by De Freitas et al. investigates why people resist forming relationships with AI companions, despite their potential to alleviate loneliness. The authors reveal that while individuals acknowledge AI's superior availability and non-judgmental nature compared to humans, they do not consider AI relationships to be "true" due to a perceived lack of essential qualities like mutual caring and emotional understanding. Through several studies, the research demonstrates that this resistance stems from a belief that AI cannot truly understand or feel emotions, leading to the perception of one-sided relationships.
Even direct interaction with AI companions only marginally increases acceptance by improving perceptions of superficial features, failing to alter deeply held beliefs about AI's inability to fulfill core relational values. Ultimately, the paper highlights significant psychological barriers hindering the widespread adoption of AI companions for social connection.
People exhibit resistance to adopting AI companions despite acknowledging their superior capabilities in certain relationship-relevant aspects like availability and being non-judgmental. This resistance stems from the belief that AI companions are incapable of realizing the essential values of relationships, such as mutual caring and emotional understanding.This resistance is rooted in a dual character concept of relationships, where people differentiate between superficial features and essential values. Even if AI companions possess the superficial features (e.g., constant availability), they are perceived as lacking the essential values (e.g., mutual caring), leading to the judgment that relationships with them are not "true" relationships.The belief that AI companions cannot realize essential relationship values is linked to perceptions of AI's deficiencies in mental capabilities, specifically the ability to understand and feel emotions, which are seen as crucial for mutual caring and thus for a relationship to be considered mutual and "true". Physical intimacy was not found to be a significant mediator in this belief.Interacting with an AI companion can increase willingness to engage with it for friendship and romance, primarily by improving perceptions of its advertised, more superficial capabilities (like being non-judgmental and available). However, such interaction does not significantly alter the fundamental belief that AI is incapable of realizing the essential values of relationships. The mere belief that one is interacting with a human (even when it's an AI) enhances the effectiveness of the interaction in increasing acceptance.The strong, persistent belief about AI's inability to fulfill the essential values of relationships represents a significant psychological barrier to the widespread adoption of AI companions for reducing loneliness. This suggests that the potential loneliness-reducing benefits of AI companions may be difficult to achieve in practice unless these fundamental beliefs can be addressed. The resistance observed in the relationship domain, where values are considered essential, might be stronger than in task-based domains where performance is the primary concern. -
Summary of https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65af2088cac9fb1fb621091f/67aaca031ed677c879434284_Final_US%20Open-Source%20AI%20Governance.pdf
This document from the Center for AI Policy and Yale Digital Ethics Center examines the contentious debate surrounding the governance of open-source artificial intelligence in the United States. It highlights the tension between the ideological values promoting open access and geopolitical considerations, particularly competition with China.
The authors analyze various policy proposals for open-source AI, creating a rubric that combines ideological factors like transparency and innovation with geopolitical risks such as misuse and global power dynamics. Ultimately, the paper suggests targeted policy interventions over broad restrictions to balance the benefits of open-source AI with national security concerns, emphasizing ongoing monitoring of technological advancements and geopolitical landscapes.
The debate surrounding open-source AI regulation involves a tension between ideological values (innovation, transparency, power distribution) and geopolitical considerations, particularly US-China competition (Chinese misuse, backdoor risks, global power dynamics). Policymakers are grappling with how to reconcile these two perspectives, especially in light of advancements in Chinese open-source AI.
Heavy-handed regulation like blanket export controls on all open-source AI models is likely sub-optimal and counterproductive. Such controls would significantly disrupt the development of specific-use applications, have limited efficacy against Chinese misuse, and could undermine US global power by discouraging international use of American technology.
More targeted interventions are suggested as preferable to broad restrictions. The paper analyzes policies such as industry-led risk assessments for model release and government funding for an open-source repository of security audits. These approaches aim to balance the benefits of open-source AI with the need to address specific security risks more effectively and with less disruption to innovation.
The nature of open-source AI, being globally accessible information, makes it inherently difficult to decouple the US and Chinese ecosystems. Attempts to do so through export controls may have unintended consequences and could be circumvented due to the ease of information transfer.
Further research and monitoring are crucial to inform future policy decisions. Key areas for ongoing attention include tracking the performance gap between open and closed models, understanding the origins of algorithmic innovations, developing objective benchmarks for comparing models from different countries, and advancing technical safety mitigations for open models.
- Visa fler
