| Total: 1000
This perspective piece calls for the study of the new field of Intersymbolic AI, by which we mean the combination of symbolic AI, whose building blocks have inherent significance/meaning, with subsymbolic AI, whose entirety creates significance/effect despite the fact that individual building blocks escape meaning. Canonical kinds of symbolic AI are logic, games and planning. Canonical kinds of subsymbolic AI are (un)supervised machine and reinforcement learning. Intersymbolic AI interlinks the worlds of symbolic AI with its compositional symbolic significance and meaning and of subsymbolic AI with its summative significance or effect to enable culminations of insights from both worlds by going between and across symbolic AI insights with subsymbolic AI techniques that are being helped by symbolic AI principles. For example, Intersymbolic AI may start with symbolic AI to understand a dynamic system, continue with subsymbolic AI to learn its control, and end with symbolic AI to safely use the outcome of the learned subsymbolic AI controller in the dynamic system. The way Intersymbolic AI combines both symbolic and subsymbolic AI to increase the effectiveness of AI compared to either kind of AI alone is likened to the way that the combination of both conscious and subconscious thought increases the effectiveness of human thought compared to either kind of thought alone. Some successful contributions to the Intersymbolic AI paradigm are surveyed here but many more are considered possible by advancing Intersymbolic AI.
This paper proposes that Artificial Intelligence (AI) progresses through several overlapping generations: AI 1.0 (Information AI), AI 2.0 (Agentic AI), AI 3.0 (Physical AI), and now a speculative AI 4.0 (Conscious AI). Each of these AI generations is driven by shifting priorities among algorithms, computing power, and data. AI 1.0 ushered in breakthroughs in pattern recognition and information processing, fueling advances in computer vision, natural language processing, and recommendation systems. AI 2.0 built on these foundations through real-time decision-making in digital environments, leveraging reinforcement learning and adaptive planning for agentic AI applications. AI 3.0 extended intelligence into physical contexts, integrating robotics, autonomous vehicles, and sensor-fused control systems to act in uncertain real-world settings. Building on these developments, AI 4.0 puts forward the bold vision of self-directed AI capable of setting its own goals, orchestrating complex training regimens, and possibly exhibiting elements of machine consciousness. This paper traces the historical foundations of AI across roughly seventy years, mapping how changes in technological bottlenecks from algorithmic innovation to high-performance computing to specialized data, have spurred each generational leap. It further highlights the ongoing synergies among AI 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, and explores the profound ethical, regulatory, and philosophical challenges that arise when artificial systems approach (or aspire to) human-like autonomy. Ultimately, understanding these evolutions and their interdependencies is pivotal for guiding future research, crafting responsible governance, and ensuring that AI transformative potential benefits society as a whole.
In this paper, we introduce FairSense-AI: a multimodal framework designed to detect and mitigate bias in both text and images. By leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs), FairSense-AI uncovers subtle forms of prejudice or stereotyping that can appear in content, providing users with bias scores, explanatory highlights, and automated recommendations for fairness enhancements. In addition, FairSense-AI integrates an AI risk assessment component that aligns with frameworks like the MIT AI Risk Repository and NIST AI Risk Management Framework, enabling structured identification of ethical and safety concerns. The platform is optimized for energy efficiency via techniques such as model pruning and mixed-precision computation, thereby reducing its environmental footprint. Through a series of case studies and applications, we demonstrate how FairSense-AI promotes responsible AI use by addressing both the social dimension of fairness and the pressing need for sustainability in large-scale AI deployments. https://vectorinstitute.github.io/FairSense-AI, https://pypi.org/project/fair-sense-ai/ (Sustainability , Responsible AI , Large Language Models , Vision Language Models , Ethical AI , Green AI)
As artificial intelligence (AI) is integrated into various services and systems in society, many companies and organizations have proposed AI principles, policies, and made the related commitments. Conversely, some have proposed the need for independent audits, arguing that the voluntary principles adopted by the developers and providers of AI services and systems insufficiently address risk. This policy recommendation summarizes the issues related to the auditing of AI services and systems and presents three recommendations for promoting AI auditing that contribute to sound AI governance. Recommendation1.Development of institutional design for AI audits. Recommendation2.Training human resources for AI audits. Recommendation3. Updating AI audits in accordance with technological progress. In this policy recommendation, AI is assumed to be that which recognizes and predicts data with the last chapter outlining how generative AI should be audited.
With the recent advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), various organizations and individuals started debating about the progress of AI as a blessing or a curse for the future of the society. This paper conducts an investigation on how the public perceives the progress of AI by utilizing the data shared on Twitter. Specifically, this paper performs a comparative analysis on the understanding of users from two categories -- general AI-Tweeters (AIT) and the expert AI-Tweeters (EAIT) who share posts about AI on Twitter. Our analysis revealed that users from both the categories express distinct emotions and interests towards AI. Users from both the categories regard AI as positive and are optimistic about the progress of AI but the experts are more negative than the general AI-Tweeters. Characterization of users manifested that `London' is the popular location of users from where they tweet about AI. Tweets posted by AIT are highly retweeted than posts made by EAIT that reveals greater diffusion of information from AIT.
In the last few years, AI continues demonstrating its positive impact on society while sometimes with ethically questionable consequences. Building and maintaining public trust in AI has been identified as the key to successful and sustainable innovation. This chapter discusses the challenges related to operationalizing ethical AI principles and presents an integrated view that covers high-level ethical AI principles, the general notion of trust/trustworthiness, and product/process support in the context of responsible AI, which helps improve both trust and trustworthiness of AI for a wider set of stakeholders.
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, it has transitioned from a research-focused discipline to a widely adopted technology, enabling intelligent solutions across various sectors. In security, AI's role in strengthening organizational resilience has been studied for over two decades. While much attention has focused on AI's constructive applications, the increasing maturity and integration of AI have also exposed its darker potentials. This article explores two emerging AI-related threats and the interplay between them: AI as a target of attacks (`Adversarial AI') and AI as a means to launch attacks on any target (`Offensive AI') -- potentially even on another AI. By cutting through the confusion and explaining these threats in plain terms, we introduce the complex and often misunderstood interplay between Adversarial AI and Offensive AI, offering a clear and accessible introduction to the challenges posed by these threats.
Current progress in the artificial intelligence domain has led to the development of various types of AI-powered dementia assessments, which can be employed to identify patients at the early stage of dementia. It can revolutionize the dementia care settings. It is essential that the medical community be aware of various AI assessments and choose them considering their degrees of validity, efficiency, practicality, reliability, and accuracy concerning the early identification of patients with dementia (PwD). On the other hand, AI developers should be informed about various non-AI assessments as well as recently developed AI assessments. Thus, this paper, which can be readable by both clinicians and AI engineers, fills the gap in the literature in explaining the existing solutions for the recognition of dementia to clinicians, as well as the techniques used and the most widespread dementia datasets to AI engineers. It follows a review of papers on AI and non-AI assessments for dementia to provide valuable information about various dementia assessments for both the AI and medical communities. The discussion and conclusion highlight the most prominent research directions and the maturity of existing solutions.
The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite behaviors or values. Far from being "bad" or "immoral," we consider whether antagonistic AI systems may sometimes have benefits to users, such as forcing users to confront their assumptions, build resilience, or develop healthier relational boundaries. Drawing from formative explorations and a speculative design workshop where participants designed fictional AI technologies that employ antagonism, we lay out a design space for antagonistic AI, articulating potential benefits, design techniques, and methods of embedding antagonistic elements into user experience. Finally, we discuss the many ethical challenges of this space and identify three dimensions for the responsible design of antagonistic AI -- consent, context, and framing.
The radio access network (RAN) landscape is undergoing a transformative shift from traditional, communication-centric infrastructures towards converged compute-communication platforms. This article introduces AI-RAN which integrates both RAN and artificial intelligence (AI) workloads on the same infrastructure. By doing so, AI-RAN not only meets the performance demands of future networks but also improves asset utilization. We begin by examining how RANs have evolved beyond mobile broadband towards AI-RAN and articulating manifestations of AI-RAN into three forms: AI-for-RAN, AI-on-RAN, and AI-and-RAN. Next, we identify the key requirements and enablers for the convergence of communication and computing in AI-RAN. We then provide a reference architecture for advancing AI-RAN from concept to practice. To illustrate the practical potential of AI-RAN, we present a proof-of-concept that concurrently processes RAN and AI workloads utilizing NVIDIA Grace-Hopper GH200 servers. Finally, we conclude the article by outlining future work directions to guide further developments of AI-RAN.
Recent breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI) have brought about increasingly capable systems that demonstrate remarkable abilities in reasoning, language understanding, and problem-solving. These advancements have prompted a renewed examination of AI awareness not as a philosophical question of consciousness, but as a measurable, functional capacity. AI awareness is a double-edged sword: it improves general capabilities, i.e., reasoning, safety, while also raising concerns around misalignment and societal risks, demanding careful oversight as AI capabilities grow. In this review, we explore the emerging landscape of AI awareness, which includes metacognition (the ability to represent and reason about its own cognitive state), self-awareness (recognizing its own identity, knowledge, limitations, inter alia), social awareness (modeling the knowledge, intentions, and behaviors of other agents and social norms), and situational awareness (assessing and responding to the context in which it operates). First, we draw on insights from cognitive science, psychology, and computational theory to trace the theoretical foundations of awareness and examine how the four distinct forms of AI awareness manifest in state-of-the-art AI. Next, we systematically analyze current evaluation methods and empirical findings to better understand these manifestations. Building on this, we explore how AI awareness is closely linked to AI capabilities, demonstrating that more aware AI agents tend to exhibit higher levels of intelligent behaviors. Finally, we discuss the risks associated with AI awareness, including key topics in AI safety, alignment, and broader ethical concerns.
As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supervised learning and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase we sample from an initial model, then generate self-critiques and revisions, and then finetune the original model on revised responses. In the RL phase, we sample from the finetuned model, use a model to evaluate which of the two samples is better, and then train a preference model from this dataset of AI preferences. We then train with RL using the preference model as the reward signal, i.e. we use 'RL from AI Feedback' (RLAIF). As a result we are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods can leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve the human-judged performance and transparency of AI decision making. These methods make it possible to control AI behavior more precisely and with far fewer human labels.
AI systems for software development are rapidly gaining prominence, yet significant challenges remain in ensuring their safety. To address this, Amazon launched the Trusted AI track of the Amazon Nova AI Challenge, a global competition among 10 university teams to drive advances in secure AI. In the challenge, five teams focus on developing automated red teaming bots, while the other five create safe AI assistants. This challenge provides teams with a unique platform to evaluate automated red-teaming and safety alignment methods through head-to-head adversarial tournaments where red teams have multi-turn conversations with the competing AI coding assistants to test their safety alignment. Along with this, the challenge provides teams with a feed of high quality annotated data to fuel iterative improvement. Throughout the challenge, teams developed state-of-the-art techniques, introducing novel approaches in reasoning-based safety alignment, robust model guardrails, multi-turn jail-breaking, and efficient probing of large language models (LLMs). To support these efforts, the Amazon Nova AI Challenge team made substantial scientific and engineering investments, including building a custom baseline coding specialist model for the challenge from scratch, developing a tournament orchestration service, and creating an evaluation harness. This paper outlines the advancements made by university teams and the Amazon Nova AI Challenge team in addressing the safety challenges of AI for software development, highlighting this collaborative effort to raise the bar for AI safety.
In this paper, we propose "Confident AI" as a means to designing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) systems with both algorithm and user confidence in model predictions and reported results. The 4 basic tenets of Confident AI are Repeatability, Believability, Sufficiency, and Adaptability. Each of the tenets is used to explore fundamental issues in current AI/ML systems and together provide an overall approach to Confident AI.
Given AI systems like ChatGPT can generate content that is indistinguishable from human-made work, the responsible use of this technology is a growing concern. Although understanding the benefits and harms of using AI systems requires more time, their rapid and indiscriminate adoption in practice is a reality. Currently, we lack a common framework and language to define and report the responsible use of AI for content generation. Prior work proposed guidelines for using AI in specific scenarios (e.g., robotics or medicine) which are not transferable to conducting and reporting scientific research. Our work makes two contributions: First, we propose a three-dimensional model consisting of transparency, integrity, and accountability to define the responsible use of AI. Second, we introduce ``AI Usage Cards'', a standardized way to report the use of AI in scientific research. Our model and cards allow users to reflect on key principles of responsible AI usage. They also help the research community trace, compare, and question various forms of AI usage and support the development of accepted community norms. The proposed framework and reporting system aims to promote the ethical and responsible use of AI in scientific research and provide a standardized approach for reporting AI usage across different research fields. We also provide a free service to easily generate AI Usage Cards for scientific work via a questionnaire and export them in various machine-readable formats for inclusion in different work products at https://ai-cards.org.
We are increasingly subjected to the power of AI authorities. As AI decisions become inescapable, entering domains such as healthcare, education, and law, we must confront a vital question: how can we ensure AI systems have the legitimacy necessary for effective governance? This essay argues that to secure AI legitimacy, we need methods that engage the public in designing and constraining AI systems, ensuring these technologies reflect the community's shared values. Constitutional AI, proposed by Anthropic, represents a step towards this goal, offering a model for democratic control of AI. However, while Constitutional AI's commitment to hardcoding explicit principles into AI models enhances transparency and accountability, it falls short in two crucial aspects: addressing the opacity of individual AI decisions and fostering genuine democratic legitimacy. To overcome these limitations, this essay proposes "Public Constitutional AI." This approach envisions a participatory process where diverse stakeholders, including ordinary citizens, deliberate on the principles guiding AI development. The resulting "AI Constitution" would carry the legitimacy of popular authorship, grounding AI governance in the public will. Furthermore, the essay proposes "AI Courts" to develop "AI case law," providing concrete examples for operationalizing constitutional principles in AI training. This evolving combination of constitutional principles and case law aims to make AI governance more responsive to public values. By grounding AI governance in deliberative democratic processes, Public Constitutional AI offers a path to imbue automated authorities with genuine democratic legitimacy, addressing the unique challenges posed by increasingly powerful AI systems while ensuring their alignment with the public interest.
Cooperation between humans and machines is increasingly vital as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into daily life. Research indicates that people are often less willing to cooperate with AI agents than with humans, more readily exploiting AI for personal gain. While prior studies have shown that giving AI agents human-like features influences people's cooperation with them, the impact of AI's assigned gender remains underexplored. This study investigates how human cooperation varies based on gender labels assigned to AI agents with which they interact. In the Prisoner's Dilemma game, 402 participants interacted with partners labelled as AI (bot) or humans. The partners were also labelled male, female, non-binary, or gender-neutral. Results revealed that participants tended to exploit female-labelled and distrust male-labelled AI agents more than their human counterparts, reflecting gender biases similar to those in human-human interactions. These findings highlight the significance of gender biases in human-AI interactions that must be considered in future policy, design of interactive AI systems, and regulation of their use.
In the evolving landscape of AI regulation, it is crucial for companies to conduct impact assessments and document their compliance through comprehensive reports. However, current reports lack grounding in regulations and often focus on specific aspects like privacy in relation to AI systems, without addressing the real-world uses of these systems. Moreover, there is no systematic effort to design and evaluate these reports with both AI practitioners and AI compliance experts. To address this gap, we conducted an iterative co-design process with 14 AI practitioners and 6 AI compliance experts and proposed a template for impact assessment reports grounded in the EU AI Act, NIST's AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO 42001 AI Management System. We evaluated the template by producing an impact assessment report for an AI-based meeting companion at a major tech company. A user study with 8 AI practitioners from the same company and 5 AI compliance experts from industry and academia revealed that our template effectively provides necessary information for impact assessments and documents the broad impacts of AI systems. Participants envisioned using the template not only at the pre-deployment stage for compliance but also as a tool to guide the design stage of AI uses.
Over the past half century, there have been several false dawns during which the "arrival" of world-changing artificial intelligence (AI) has been heralded. Tempting fate, the authors believe the age of AI has, indeed, finally arrived. Powerful image generators, such as DALL-E2 and Midjourney have suddenly allowed anyone with access the ability easily to create rich and complex art. In a similar vein, text generators, such as GPT3.5 (including ChatGPT) and BLOOM, allow users to compose detailed written descriptions of many topics of interest. And, it is even possible now for a person without extensive expertise in writing software to use AI to generate code capable of myriad applications. While AI will continue to evolve and improve, probably at a rapid rate, the current state of AI is already ushering in profound changes to many different sectors of society. Every new technology challenges the ability of humanity to govern it wisely. However, governance is usually viewed as both possible and necessary due to the disruption new technology often poses to social structures, industries, the environment, and other important human concerns. In this article, we offer an analysis of a range of interactions between AI and governance, with the hope that wise decisions may be made that maximize benefits and minimize costs. The article addresses two main aspects of this relationship: the governance of AI by humanity, and the governance of humanity by AI. The approach we have taken is itself informed by AI, as this article was written collaboratively by the authors and ChatGPT.
The promise of AI is huge. AI systems have already achieved good enough performance to be in our streets and in our homes. However, they can be brittle and unfair. For society to reap the benefits of AI systems, society needs to be able to trust them. Inspired by decades of progress in trustworthy computing, we suggest what trustworthy properties would be desired of AI systems. By enumerating a set of new research questions, we explore one approach--formal verification--for ensuring trust in AI. Trustworthy AI ups the ante on both trustworthy computing and formal methods.
Artificial intelligence (AI) provides considerable opportunities to assist human work. However, one crucial challenge of human-AI collaboration is that many AI algorithms operate in a black-box manner where the way how the AI makes predictions remains opaque. This makes it difficult for humans to validate a prediction made by AI against their own domain knowledge. For this reason, we hypothesize that augmenting humans with explainable AI as a decision aid improves task performance in human-AI collaboration. To test this hypothesis, we analyze the effect of augmenting domain experts with explainable AI in the form of visual heatmaps. We then compare participants that were either supported by (a) black-box AI or (b) explainable AI, where the latter supports them to follow AI predictions when the AI is accurate or overrule the AI when the AI predictions are wrong. We conducted two preregistered experiments with representative, real-world visual inspection tasks from manufacturing and medicine. The first experiment was conducted with factory workers from an electronics factory, who performed $N=9,600$ assessments of whether electronic products have defects. The second experiment was conducted with radiologists, who performed $N=5,650$ assessments of chest X-ray images to identify lung lesions. The results of our experiments with domain experts performing real-world tasks show that task performance improves when participants are supported by explainable AI instead of black-box AI. For example, in the manufacturing setting, we find that augmenting participants with explainable AI (as opposed to black-box AI) leads to a five-fold decrease in the median error rate of human decisions, which gives a significant improvement in task performance.
The convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and blockchain technology is reshaping the digital world, offering decentralized, secure, and efficient AI services on blockchain platforms. Despite the promise, the high computational demands of AI on blockchain raise significant privacy and efficiency concerns. The Optimistic Privacy-Preserving AI (opp/ai) framework is introduced as a pioneering solution to these issues, striking a balance between privacy protection and computational efficiency. The framework integrates Zero-Knowledge Machine Learning (zkML) for privacy with Optimistic Machine Learning (opML) for efficiency, creating a hybrid model tailored for blockchain AI services. This study presents the opp/ai framework, delves into the privacy features of zkML, and assesses the framework's performance and adaptability across different scenarios.
People work with AI systems to improve their decision making, but often under- or over-rely on AI predictions and perform worse than they would have unassisted. To help people appropriately rely on AI aids, we propose showing them behavior descriptions, details of how AI systems perform on subgroups of instances. We tested the efficacy of behavior descriptions through user studies with 225 participants in three distinct domains: fake review detection, satellite image classification, and bird classification. We found that behavior descriptions can increase human-AI accuracy through two mechanisms: helping people identify AI failures and increasing people's reliance on the AI when it is more accurate. These findings highlight the importance of people's mental models in human-AI collaboration and show that informing people of high-level AI behaviors can significantly improve AI-assisted decision making.
Despite the increasing development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, Requirements Engineering (RE) activities face challenges in this new data-intensive paradigm. We identified a lack of support for problem discovery within AI innovation projects. To address this, we propose and evaluate DIP-AI, a discovery framework tailored to guide early-stage exploration in such initiatives. Based on a literature review, our solution proposal combines elements of ISO 12207, 5338, and Design Thinking to support the discovery of AI innovation projects, aiming at promoting higher quality deliveries and stakeholder satisfaction. We evaluated DIP-AI in an industry-academia collaboration (IAC) case study of an AI innovation project, in which participants applied DIP-AI to the discovery phase in practice and provided their perceptions about the approach's problem discovery capability, acceptance, and suggestions. The results indicate that DIP-AI is relevant and useful, particularly in facilitating problem discovery in AI projects. This research contributes to academia by sharing DIP-AI as a framework for AI problem discovery. For industry, we discuss the use of this framework in a real IAC program that develops AI innovation projects.
There is much discussion of the false outputs that generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, and Grok create. In popular terminology, these have been dubbed AI hallucinations. However, deeming these AI outputs hallucinations is controversial, with many claiming this is a metaphorical misnomer. Nevertheless, in this paper, I argue that when viewed through the lens of distributed cognition theory, we can better see the dynamic and troubling ways in which inaccurate beliefs, distorted memories and self-narratives, and delusional thinking can emerge through human-AI interactions; examples of which are popularly being referred to as cases of AI psychosis. In such cases, I suggest we move away from thinking about how an AI system might hallucinate at us, by generating false outputs, to thinking about how, when we routinely rely on generative AI to help us think, remember, and narrate, we can come to hallucinate with AI. This can happen when AI introduces errors into the distributed cognitive process, but it can also happen when AI sustains, affirms, and elaborates on our own delusional thinking and self-narratives, such as in the case of Jaswant Singh Chail. I also examine how the conversational style of chatbots can lead them to play a dual-function, both as a cognitive artefact and a quasi-Other with whom we co-construct our beliefs, narratives, and our realities. It is this dual function, I suggest, that makes generative AI an unusual, and particularly seductive, case of distributed cognition.