AI for Compliance
Abstract
As AI becomes more "agentic," it faces technical and socio-legal issues it must address if it is to fulfill its promise of increased economic productivity and efficiency. This paper uses technical and legal perspectives to explain how things change when AI systems start being able to directly execute tasks on behalf of a user. We show how technical conceptions of agents track some, but not all, socio-legal conceptions of agency. That is, both computer science and the law recognize the problems of under-specification for an agent, and both disciplines have robust conceptions of how to address ensuring an agent does what the programmer, or in the law, the principal desires and no more. However, to date, computer science has under-theorized issues related to questions of loyalty and to third parties that interact with an agent, both of which are central parts of the law of agency. First, we examine the correlations between implied authority in agency law and the principle of value-alignment in AI, wherein AI systems must operate under imperfect objective specification. Second, we reveal gaps in the current computer science view of agents pertaining to the legal concepts of disclosure and loyalty, and how failure to account for them can result in unintended effects in AI ecommerce agents. In surfacing these gaps, we show a path forward for responsible AI agent development and deployment.
As AI becomes more "agentic," it faces technical and socio-legal issues it must address if it is to fulfill its promise of increased economic productivity and efficiency. This paper uses technical and legal perspectives to explain how things change when AI systems start being able to directly execute tasks on behalf of a user. We show how technical conceptions of agents track some, but not all, socio-legal conceptions of agency. That is, both computer science and the law recognize the problems of under-specification for an agent, and both disciplines have robust conceptions of how to address ensuring an agent does what the programmer, or in the law, the principal desires and no more. However, to date, computer science has under-theorized issues related to questions of loyalty and to third parties that interact with an agent, both of which are central parts of the law of agency. First, we examine the correlations between implied authority in agency law and the principle of value-alignment in AI, wherein AI systems must operate under imperfect objective specification. Second, we reveal gaps in the current computer science view of agents pertaining to the legal concepts of disclosure and loyalty, and how failure to account for them can result in unintended effects in AI ecommerce agents. In surfacing these gaps, we show a path forward for responsible AI agent development and deployment.
Abstract
Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), but face important concerns about accountability and transparency when using AI systems. In particular, perception or actuality of AI agency might create ethics sinks - constructs that facilitate dissipation of responsibility when AI systems of disputed moral status interface with bureaucratic structures. Here, we reject the notion that ethics sinks are a necessary consequence of introducing AI systems into bureaucracies. Rather, where they appear, they are the product of structural design decisions across both the technology and the institution deploying it. We support this claim via a systematic application of conceptions of moral agency in AI ethics to Weberian bureaucracy. We establish that it is both desirable and feasible to render AI systems as tools for the generation of organizational transparency and legibility, which continue the processes of Weberian rationalization initiated by previous waves of digitalization. We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures: (a) maintain clear and just human lines of accountability, (b) ensure humans whose work is augmented by AI systems can verify the systems are functioning correctly, and (c) introduce AI only where it doesn't inhibit the capacity of bureaucracies towards either of their twin aims of legitimacy and stewardship. We suggest that AI introduced within this framework can not only improve efficiency and productivity while avoiding ethics sinks, but also improve the transparency and even the legitimacy of a bureaucracy.
Public-sector bureaucracies seek to reap the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), but face important concerns about accountability and transparency when using AI systems. In particular, perception or actuality of AI agency might create ethics sinks - constructs that facilitate dissipation of responsibility when AI systems of disputed moral status interface with bureaucratic structures. Here, we reject the notion that ethics sinks are a necessary consequence of introducing AI systems into bureaucracies. Rather, where they appear, they are the product of structural design decisions across both the technology and the institution deploying it. We support this claim via a systematic application of conceptions of moral agency in AI ethics to Weberian bureaucracy. We establish that it is both desirable and feasible to render AI systems as tools for the generation of organizational transparency and legibility, which continue the processes of Weberian rationalization initiated by previous waves of digitalization. We present a three-point Moral Agency Framework for legitimate integration of AI in bureaucratic structures: (a) maintain clear and just human lines of accountability, (b) ensure humans whose work is augmented by AI systems can verify the systems are functioning correctly, and (c) introduce AI only where it doesn't inhibit the capacity of bureaucracies towards either of their twin aims of legitimacy and stewardship. We suggest that AI introduced within this framework can not only improve efficiency and productivity while avoiding ethics sinks, but also improve the transparency and even the legitimacy of a bureaucracy.
Chat Designers
Toward Needs-Conscious Design: Co-Designing a Human-Centered Framework for AI-Mediated Communication
Abstract
We introduce Needs-Conscious Design, a human-centered framework for AI-mediated communication that builds on the principles of Nonviolent Communication (NVC). We conducted an interview study with N=14 certified NVC trainers and a diary study and co-design with N=13 lay users of online communication technologies to understand how NVC might inform design that centers human relationships. We define three pillars of Needs-Conscious Design: Intentionality, Presence, and Receptiveness to Needs. Drawing on participant co-designs, we provide design concepts and illustrative examples for each of these pillars. We further describe a problematic emergent property of AI-mediated communication identified by participants, which we call Empathy Fog, and which is characterized by uncertainty over how much empathy, attention, and effort a user has actually invested via an AI-facilitated online interaction. Finally, because even well-intentioned designs may alter user behavior and process emotional data, we provide guiding questions for consentful Needs-Conscious Design, applying an affirmative consent framework used in social media contexts. Needs-Conscious Design offers a foundation for leveraging AI to facilitate human connection, rather than replacing or obscuring it.
We introduce Needs-Conscious Design, a human-centered framework for AI-mediated communication that builds on the principles of Nonviolent Communication (NVC). We conducted an interview study with N=14 certified NVC trainers and a diary study and co-design with N=13 lay users of online communication technologies to understand how NVC might inform design that centers human relationships. We define three pillars of Needs-Conscious Design: Intentionality, Presence, and Receptiveness to Needs. Drawing on participant co-designs, we provide design concepts and illustrative examples for each of these pillars. We further describe a problematic emergent property of AI-mediated communication identified by participants, which we call Empathy Fog, and which is characterized by uncertainty over how much empathy, attention, and effort a user has actually invested via an AI-facilitated online interaction. Finally, because even well-intentioned designs may alter user behavior and process emotional data, we provide guiding questions for consentful Needs-Conscious Design, applying an affirmative consent framework used in social media contexts. Needs-Conscious Design offers a foundation for leveraging AI to facilitate human connection, rather than replacing or obscuring it.
Abstract
Sense of Community (SOC) is vital to individual and collective well-being. Although social interactions have moved increasingly online, still little is known about the specific relationships between the nature of these interactions and Sense of Virtual Community (SOVC). This study addresses this gap by exploring how conversational structure and linguistic style predict SOVC in online communities, using a large-scale survey of 2,826 Reddit users across 281 varied subreddits. We develop a hierarchical model to predict self-reported SOVC based on automatically quantifiable and highly generalizable features that are agnostic to community topic and that describe both individual users and entire communities. We identify specific interaction patterns (e.g., reciprocal reply chains, use of prosocial language) associated with stronger communities and identify three primary dimensions of SOVC within Reddit -- Membership & Belonging, Cooperation & Shared Values, and Connection & Influence. This study provides the first quantitative evidence linking patterns of social interaction to SOVC and highlights actionable strategies for fostering stronger community attachment, using an approach that can generalize readily across community topics, languages, and platforms. These insights offer theoretical implications for the study of online communities and practical suggestions for the design of features to help more individuals experience the positive benefits of online community participation.
Sense of Community (SOC) is vital to individual and collective well-being. Although social interactions have moved increasingly online, still little is known about the specific relationships between the nature of these interactions and Sense of Virtual Community (SOVC). This study addresses this gap by exploring how conversational structure and linguistic style predict SOVC in online communities, using a large-scale survey of 2,826 Reddit users across 281 varied subreddits. We develop a hierarchical model to predict self-reported SOVC based on automatically quantifiable and highly generalizable features that are agnostic to community topic and that describe both individual users and entire communities. We identify specific interaction patterns (e.g., reciprocal reply chains, use of prosocial language) associated with stronger communities and identify three primary dimensions of SOVC within Reddit -- Membership & Belonging, Cooperation & Shared Values, and Connection & Influence. This study provides the first quantitative evidence linking patterns of social interaction to SOVC and highlights actionable strategies for fostering stronger community attachment, using an approach that can generalize readily across community topics, languages, and platforms. These insights offer theoretical implications for the study of online communities and practical suggestions for the design of features to help more individuals experience the positive benefits of online community participation.
AI Governance
Abstract
The rapid advancement of AI has expanded its capabilities across domains, yet introduced critical technical vulnerabilities, such as algorithmic bias and adversarial sensitivity, that pose significant societal risks, including misinformation, inequity, security breaches, physical harm, and eroded public trust. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust AI governance. We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security (system reliability), Derivative Security (real-world harm mitigation), and Social Ethics (value alignment and accountability). Uniquely, our approach unifies technical methods, emerging evaluation benchmarks, and policy insights to promote transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems. Through a systematic review of over 300 studies, we identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight. These shortcomings stem from treating governance as an afterthought, rather than a foundational design principle, resulting in reactive, siloed efforts that fail to address the interdependence of technical integrity and societal trust. To overcome this, we present an integrated research agenda that bridges technical rigor with social responsibility. Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy. The accompanying repository is available at https://github.com/ZTianle/Awesome-AI-SG.
The rapid advancement of AI has expanded its capabilities across domains, yet introduced critical technical vulnerabilities, such as algorithmic bias and adversarial sensitivity, that pose significant societal risks, including misinformation, inequity, security breaches, physical harm, and eroded public trust. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust AI governance. We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security (system reliability), Derivative Security (real-world harm mitigation), and Social Ethics (value alignment and accountability). Uniquely, our approach unifies technical methods, emerging evaluation benchmarks, and policy insights to promote transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems. Through a systematic review of over 300 studies, we identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight. These shortcomings stem from treating governance as an afterthought, rather than a foundational design principle, resulting in reactive, siloed efforts that fail to address the interdependence of technical integrity and societal trust. To overcome this, we present an integrated research agenda that bridges technical rigor with social responsibility. Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy. The accompanying repository is available at https://github.com/ZTianle/Awesome-AI-SG.
Abstract
The rapid advancement of AI has expanded its capabilities across domains, yet introduced critical technical vulnerabilities, such as algorithmic bias and adversarial sensitivity, that pose significant societal risks, including misinformation, inequity, security breaches, physical harm, and eroded public trust. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust AI governance. We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security (system reliability), Derivative Security (real-world harm mitigation), and Social Ethics (value alignment and accountability). Uniquely, our approach unifies technical methods, emerging evaluation benchmarks, and policy insights to promote transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems. Through a systematic review of over 300 studies, we identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight. These shortcomings stem from treating governance as an afterthought, rather than a foundational design principle, resulting in reactive, siloed efforts that fail to address the interdependence of technical integrity and societal trust. To overcome this, we present an integrated research agenda that bridges technical rigor with social responsibility. Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy. The accompanying repository is available at https://github.com/ZTianle/Awesome-AI-SG.
The rapid advancement of AI has expanded its capabilities across domains, yet introduced critical technical vulnerabilities, such as algorithmic bias and adversarial sensitivity, that pose significant societal risks, including misinformation, inequity, security breaches, physical harm, and eroded public trust. These challenges highlight the urgent need for robust AI governance. We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security (system reliability), Derivative Security (real-world harm mitigation), and Social Ethics (value alignment and accountability). Uniquely, our approach unifies technical methods, emerging evaluation benchmarks, and policy insights to promote transparency, accountability, and trust in AI systems. Through a systematic review of over 300 studies, we identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight. These shortcomings stem from treating governance as an afterthought, rather than a foundational design principle, resulting in reactive, siloed efforts that fail to address the interdependence of technical integrity and societal trust. To overcome this, we present an integrated research agenda that bridges technical rigor with social responsibility. Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy. The accompanying repository is available at https://github.com/ZTianle/Awesome-AI-SG.
LLMs for Compliance
Abstract
Due to perceptions of efficiency and significant productivity gains, various organisations, including in education, are adopting Large Language Models (LLMs) into their workflows. Educator-facing, learner-facing, and institution-facing LLMs, collectively, Educational Large Language Models (eLLMs), complement and enhance the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and academic operations. However, their integration into an educational setting raises significant cybersecurity concerns. A comprehensive landscape of contemporary attacks on LLMs and their impact on the educational environment is missing. This study presents a generalised taxonomy of fifty attacks on LLMs, which are categorized as attacks targeting either models or their infrastructure. The severity of these attacks is evaluated in the educational sector using the DREAD risk assessment framework. Our risk assessment indicates that token smuggling, adversarial prompts, direct injection, and multi-step jailbreak are critical attacks on eLLMs. The proposed taxonomy, its application in the educational environment, and our risk assessment will help academic and industrial practitioners to build resilient solutions that protect learners and institutions.
Due to perceptions of efficiency and significant productivity gains, various organisations, including in education, are adopting Large Language Models (LLMs) into their workflows. Educator-facing, learner-facing, and institution-facing LLMs, collectively, Educational Large Language Models (eLLMs), complement and enhance the effectiveness of teaching, learning, and academic operations. However, their integration into an educational setting raises significant cybersecurity concerns. A comprehensive landscape of contemporary attacks on LLMs and their impact on the educational environment is missing. This study presents a generalised taxonomy of fifty attacks on LLMs, which are categorized as attacks targeting either models or their infrastructure. The severity of these attacks is evaluated in the educational sector using the DREAD risk assessment framework. Our risk assessment indicates that token smuggling, adversarial prompts, direct injection, and multi-step jailbreak are critical attacks on eLLMs. The proposed taxonomy, its application in the educational environment, and our risk assessment will help academic and industrial practitioners to build resilient solutions that protect learners and institutions.
Abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their outputs align with human values and safety standards has become critical. The field has developed diverse alignment approaches including traditional fine-tuning methods (RLHF, instruction tuning), post-hoc correction systems, and inference-time interventions, each with distinct advantages and limitations. However, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to systematically compare these paradigms and guide deployment decisions. This paper introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation of alignment techniques for LLMs, a comprehensive evaluation framework that provides a systematic comparison across all major alignment paradigms. Our framework assesses methods along four key dimensions: alignment detection, alignment quality, computational efficiency, and robustness. Through experiments across diverse base models and alignment strategies, we demonstrate the utility of our framework in identifying strengths and limitations of current state-of-the-art models, providing valuable insights for future research directions.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their outputs align with human values and safety standards has become critical. The field has developed diverse alignment approaches including traditional fine-tuning methods (RLHF, instruction tuning), post-hoc correction systems, and inference-time interventions, each with distinct advantages and limitations. However, the lack of unified evaluation frameworks makes it difficult to systematically compare these paradigms and guide deployment decisions. This paper introduces a multi-dimensional evaluation of alignment techniques for LLMs, a comprehensive evaluation framework that provides a systematic comparison across all major alignment paradigms. Our framework assesses methods along four key dimensions: alignment detection, alignment quality, computational efficiency, and robustness. Through experiments across diverse base models and alignment strategies, we demonstrate the utility of our framework in identifying strengths and limitations of current state-of-the-art models, providing valuable insights for future research directions.
Help us improve your experience!
This project is on its early stages your feedback can be pivotal on the future of the project.
Let us know what you think about this week's papers and suggestions!
Give Feedback