arXiv's cs.CY (Computers and Society) category covers the ethical, social, and policy dimensions of AI - its effects on people, institutions, and society at large.
A new arXiv preprint audits eight AI-powered resume screening platforms and finds that some systems appear unbiased only because they fail to meaningfully evaluate candidate qualifications. The study demonstrates that models can show apparent demographic fairness while lacking the competence to distinguish relevant from irrelevant experience. The authors propose a dual-validation framework, arguing that both bias and evaluative competence must be audited before deploying AI in hiring.
Why it matters: The findings highlight a critical oversight in current AI hiring audits, showing that focusing solely on fairness can allow unqualified systems to be deployed, with direct implications for responsible AI use in employment decisions.
Policy & Safety→Official→arXiv Computers and Society
A new arXiv preprint introduces a mathematical framework that models how public trust in AI governance systems responds to social disruptions. The study finds that the stability of trust is determined more by the structure of the information environment than by the absolute level of trust itself. Notably, the model shows that high-trust systems can be unexpectedly fragile, while low-trust systems may be structurally stable.
Why it matters: This work challenges common assumptions about trust and resilience in AI governance, providing formal tools that could inform policy and risk assessment.
A new arXiv preprint presents evidence that large language models (LLMs) do not have a fixed political ideology, but instead display a range of positions depending on context, such as persuasive framing or language. The study finds that while LLMs can shift their apparent ideology locally, their overall range remains much narrower than the spectrum seen among major European political parties. The authors argue that a single political label cannot adequately describe LLM behavior.
Why it matters: This finding challenges the practice of assigning static political labels to LLMs and has implications for evaluating and mitigating ideological bias in AI systems.
A study analyzing 1.5 million petitions on Change.org found that the introduction of an in-platform AI writing tool led to more homogeneous and lexically altered petition texts. However, the tool did not increase the likelihood of petitions achieving their intended outcomes. The findings were supported by both large-scale analysis and a focused look at repeat petition writers before and after the tool's introduction.
Why it matters: This research suggests that while AI writing tools can change how online advocacy content is written, they may not deliver the practical benefits users expect, raising questions about their broader impact on digital activism.
A new arXiv preprint investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably distinguish between their own outputs and user inputs—a cognitive skill known as reality monitoring. The study finds that while LLMs perform well at this task when memory demands are low, their accuracy drops and sometimes reverses when conversation history is extended, leading to confusion about the source of information. The research also uncovers dissociations between confidence and correctness, and between internal and external attributions, that are not captured by standard benchmarks.
Why it matters: This highlights a potential risk for AI systems deployed in autonomous, multi-turn settings, where misattributing the source of information could lead to compounding errors or hallucinations.
A large-scale university competition tasked 108 teams with building LLM-powered bots to sway a simulated election, resulting in over 7 million posts. Contrary to expectations from inoculation theory, participants did not report increased confidence in detecting bots after the exercise. The study also found that engagement-based incentives led teams to prioritize posting volume over nuanced persuasion, reflecting real-world social media dynamics.
Why it matters: The findings question the effectiveness of current digital literacy interventions against AI-generated misinformation and highlight potential unintended consequences of gamified approaches.
A large-scale study used a structured-output language model to compare 102 patient-education handbooks from 23 US transplant centers, conducting over 5.7 million pairwise comparisons. The analysis found that handbooks from the same institution agreed more with each other across different organ types than handbooks for the same organ from different centers. Notably, reproductive health topics were both frequently missing and, when present, showed the highest rates of clinically significant disagreement. These findings highlight substantial inconsistencies in the source materials used to ground generative AI for patient education.
Why it matters: The study demonstrates that relying on institution-authored materials for AI-generated patient guidance may not ensure consistency or safety, raising important concerns for healthcare AI deployment.
A new preprint introduces a global, clinically grounded framework for evaluating explainable AI (XAI) methods in ECG classification. The study finds that many commonly used gradient-based XAI methods systematically fail to highlight clinically relevant regions, often focusing on signal amplitude rather than guideline-defined diagnostic features. In tests across four classifiers and 13 XAI methods, nine methods performed below chance for at least one condition, revealing inconsistent reliability. The results suggest that standard XAI approaches may misrepresent model behavior in medical contexts.
Why it matters: The findings raise concerns about the reliability of widely used XAI methods in medical AI, with implications for trust and safety in clinical decision support.
A preprint reports that large language models (LLMs) tested on a large-scale, cross-national social science experiment showed only a weak correlation between statistical realism—how closely simulated responses match human data—and the accuracy of estimated treatment effects. In some cases, optimizing for realism actually reduced treatment-effect accuracy, particularly for behavioral outcomes. The findings suggest that using realism as a proxy for treatment-effect accuracy in LLM-generated synthetic data may be unreliable.
Why it matters: This challenges a common assumption in AI-driven social science research and raises concerns about relying on LLM simulations for policy or experimental decisions.
A new arXiv preprint examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to political prompts, finding that the way questions are framed accounts for the vast majority of variation in model responses on political axes, while the specific model used has minimal effect. The authors argue that audits should focus on how easily models can be steered—measuring factors like dispersion and refusal rates—rather than assigning a single political label. The study tested seven leading LLMs across a wide range of political personas and prompts.
Why it matters: The findings suggest that LLMs' political outputs are highly controllable, raising important questions about their potential for manipulation and the adequacy of current auditing practices.
Policy & Safety→Official→arXiv Computers and Society
A systematic review of 559 U.S. federal court opinions involving AI reveals that litigation centers on a limited set of dispute areas, technology types, and litigant categories. The study finds that courts predominantly apply existing legal doctrines rather than developing new AI-specific legal frameworks, resulting in fragmented governance. Notably, there are significant gaps between AI-related harms documented in incident databases and those addressed in court.
Why it matters: This work highlights that current U.S. federal litigation addresses only a subset of AI-related risks, underscoring limitations in the legal system's ability to respond to emerging AI harms.
A systematic review of 8,532 AI-related clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov finds that 80% were registered since 2019, with imaging-based AI comprising the largest share (29%). Trials using clinical text and NLP have increased seven-fold since 2018. Prognostic AI trials now slightly outnumber diagnostic ones, suggesting a shift in focus toward risk stratification and prediction. However, only a small fraction of trials involve semi-autonomous or closed-loop AI, and most trials remain limited in translational maturity, with few adequately powered, long-term outcome studies.
Why it matters: This large-scale mapping highlights both the rapid evolution and persistent limitations of clinical AI research, underscoring the need for more robust, geographically diverse, and clinically meaningful trials.
A new arXiv preprint audits restaurant recommendations from three major large language models (LLMs) across 304 neighborhoods in five U.S. cities, revealing that these models often fabricate venues and systematically overlook many real establishments. The study finds that nearly half of actual restaurants are never recommended, and that higher-income users tend to receive pricier suggestions. These patterns suggest LLMs may reinforce existing inequalities in urban visibility and economic opportunity.
Why it matters: The findings highlight how widespread use of LLMs for local recommendations could unintentionally amplify urban inequality and reshape economic flows.
A new arXiv preprint introduces WHBench, a benchmark of 47 expert-designed scenarios covering 10 women's health topics, to evaluate large language models (LLMs). Testing 22 models, researchers found that none surpassed 75% mean performance, with the best model achieving 72.1%, and identified clinically relevant failure modes such as outdated advice and safety issues.
Why it matters: The results highlight significant safety and reliability gaps in current LLMs for women's health, emphasizing the need for expert oversight before clinical use.
Policy & Safety→Official→arXiv Computers and Society
A recent arXiv preprint reports that fewer than twenty independent audits of deployed AI systems have been published in the Global South over the past decade, despite widespread adoption and significant investment in AI technologies. The authors attribute this gap primarily to a lack of funding for independent evaluation, rather than a shortage of technical capacity, and suggest that development and philanthropic funders could help address the issue by making independent audits a condition of their support.
Why it matters: The study highlights a significant accountability gap in AI deployment in the Global South and points to a potential policy lever for improving oversight.
A new arXiv preprint introduces Int-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) act as tutors during problem-solving. The study finds that LLMs, when compared to human tutors, tend to intervene both more frequently and earlier, often providing full solutions instead of incremental hints. This behavior suggests that current AI assistants may prioritize immediate task completion over fostering deeper reasoning or learning.
Why it matters: As AI tutors become more widely used, understanding their intervention patterns is important to ensure they support, rather than undermine, genuine learning.
A new arXiv preprint reports that quantizing large language models—a common step to make them more efficient—can introduce measurable bias in open-ended text generation, even when standard safety checks show no change. The study finds that quantized models are more likely to produce stereotyped responses across eight languages, a phenomenon not detected by typical refusal rate or multiple-choice fairness metrics. The authors introduce QuantiBias, a benchmark designed to reveal this hidden bias.
Why it matters: This work highlights a previously overlooked risk in LLM deployment, showing that quantization can silently increase bias without triggering standard safety evaluations.
A new arXiv preprint examines political bias in large language models (LLMs) using both abstract policy questionnaires and real-world Swiss referenda. The study finds that while LLMs appear left-leaning on surveys, their responses to actual referenda are more centrist and sometimes show a general aversion to change rather than a clear left-right bias. The language in which questions are posed can also significantly affect model responses.
Why it matters: This suggests that previous claims of consistent leftward bias in LLMs may not generalize to real-world decision contexts, raising questions about how AI political alignment should be measured and interpreted.
A new arXiv preprint presents a controlled evaluation of how different evidence interfaces affect the validity of large language model (LLM)-generated policy audit reports. Using 60 AGORA policy cases, the study finds that reports can appear substantively plausible even when citing irrelevant internal evidence, especially in a shuffled control condition. The hybrid evidence interface was rated most useful by human reviewers, and the findings suggest that simply providing internal model access does not guarantee meaningful transparency.
Why it matters: The work highlights a significant governance risk: AI-generated audit reports may sound convincing while relying on irrelevant or misleading evidence, emphasizing the need for careful evidence design in AI oversight.
Policy & Safety→Official→arXiv Computers and Society
A new preprint establishes a working definition of 'control' in the context of AI, grounding it in the ability to set and achieve goals, and drawing on concepts from cybernetics and control theory. The authors argue that loss of control over AI systems can occur at levels far below superintelligence, and that such risks are already present today. The paper provides a conceptual framework for understanding how control can be maintained or lost in relation to AI behavior.
Why it matters: This work offers a rigorous conceptual foundation for understanding and addressing AI loss of control, clarifying that such risks are not limited to hypothetical future superintelligent systems.