Narratives about artificial intelligence (AI) entangle autonomy, the capacity to self-govern, with sentience, the capacity to sense and feel. AI agents that perform tasks autonomously and companions that recognize and express emotions may activate mental models of autonomy and sentience, respectively, provoking distinct reactions. To examine this possibility, we conducted three pilot studies (N = 374) and four preregistered vignette experiments describing an AI as autonomous, sentient, both, or neither (N = 2,702). Activating a mental model of sentience increased general mind perception (cognition and emotion) and moral consideration more than autonomy, but autonomy increased perceived threat more than sentience. Sentience also increased perceived autonomy more than vice versa. Based on a within-paper meta-analysis, sentience changed reactions more than autonomy on average. By disentangling different mental models of AI, we can study human-AI interaction with more precision to better navigate the detailed design of anthropomorphized AI and prompting interfaces.

The law draws a sharp distinction between objects and persons, and between two kinds of persons, the ''fictional'' kind (i.e. corporations), and the ''non-fictional'' kind (individual or ''natural'' persons). This paper will assess whether we maximize overall long-term legal coherence by (A) maintaining an object classification for all future AI systems, (B) creating fictional legal persons associated with suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (giving these fictional legal persons derogable rights and duties associated with certified groups of existing persons, potentially including free speech, contract rights, and standing to sue ''on behalf of'' the AI system), or (C) recognizing non-fictional legal personhood through legal identity for suitably advanced, individuated AI systems (recognizing them as entities meriting legal standing with non-derogable rights which for the human case include life, due process, habeas corpus, freedom from slavery, and freedom of conscience). We will clarify the meaning and implications of each option along the way, considering liability, copyright, family law, fundamental rights, civil rights, citizenship, and AI safety regulation. We will tentatively find that the non-fictional personhood approach may be best from a coherence perspective, for at least some advanced AI systems. An object approach may prove untenable for sufficiently humanoid advanced systems, though we suggest that it is adequate for currently existing systems as of 2025. While fictional personhood would resolve some coherence issues for future systems, it would create others and provide solutions that are neither durable nor fit for purpose. Finally, our review will suggest that ''hybrid'' approaches are likely to fail and lead to further incoherence: the choice between object, fictional person and non-fictional person is unavoidable.

Current studies perceive LLMs' knowledge boundary

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) promise enhanced reasoning by integrating diverse inputs such as text, vision, and audio. Yet cross-modal reasoning remains underexplored, with conflicting reports on whether added modalities help or harm performance. These inconsistencies stem from a lack of controlled evaluation frameworks and analysis of models' internals to isolate when and why modality interactions support or undermine reasoning. We address this gap through a logic-grounded evaluation framework that categorizes multimodal reasoning into six interaction patterns, varying how facts are distributed across modalities and logically combined. Empirically, additional modalities enhance reasoning only when they provide independent and sufficient reasoning paths, while redundant or chained entailment support often hurts performance. Moreover, reasoning degrades in three systematic ways: weaker modalities drag down overall performance, conflicts bias preference toward certain modalities, and joint signals from different modalities fail to be integrated effectively. Therefore, we identify two core failures: task-composition bottleneck, where recognition and reasoning cannot be jointly executed in one pass, and fusion bottleneck, where early integration introduces bias. For further investigation, we find that attention patterns fail to encode fact usefulness, but a simple two-step prompting (recognize then reason) restores performance, confirming the task-composition bottleneck. Moreover, modality identity remains recoverable in early layers, and softening attention in early fusion improves reasoning, highlighting biased fusion as another failure mode. Overall, our findings show that integration, not perception, is the main barrier to multimodal reasoning, suggesting composition-aware training and early fusion control as promising directions.

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become integral to everyday writing, critical questions arise about how to preserve writers' sense of agency and ownership when using these tools. Yet, a systematic understanding of how AI assistance affects different aspects of the writing process - and how this shapes writers' agency - remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 109 HCI papers using the PRISMA approach. From this literature, we identify four overarching design strategies for AI writing support: structured guidance, guided exploration, active co-writing, and critical feedback - mapped across the four key cognitive processes in writing: planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring. We complement this analysis with interviews of 15 writers across diverse domains. Our findings reveal that writers' desired levels of AI intervention vary across the writing process: content-focused writers (e.g., academics) prioritize ownership during planning, while form-focused writers (e.g., creatives) value control over translating and reviewing. Writers' preferences are also shaped by contextual goals, values, and notions of originality and authorship. By examining when ownership matters, what writers want to own, and how AI interactions shape agency, we surface both alignment and gaps between research and user needs. Our findings offer actionable design guidance for developing human-centered writing tools for co-writing with AI, on human terms.

Mental health disorders are rising worldwide. However, the availability of trained clinicians has not scaled proportionally, leaving many people without adequate or timely support. To bridge this gap, recent studies have shown the promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to assist mental health diagnosis, monitoring, and intervention. However, the development of efficient, reliable, and ethical AI to assist clinicians is heavily dependent on high-quality clinical training datasets. Despite growing interest in data curation for training clinical AI assistants, existing datasets largely remain scattered, under-documented, and often inaccessible, hindering the reproducibility, comparability, and generalizability of AI models developed for clinical mental health care. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive survey of clinical mental health datasets relevant to the training and development of AI-powered clinical assistants. We categorize these datasets by mental disorders (e.g., depression, schizophrenia), data modalities (e.g., text, speech, physiological signals), task types (e.g., diagnosis prediction, symptom severity estimation, intervention generation), accessibility (public, restricted or private), and sociocultural context (e.g., language and cultural background). Along with these, we also investigate synthetic clinical mental health datasets. Our survey identifies critical gaps such as a lack of longitudinal data, limited cultural and linguistic representation, inconsistent collection and annotation standards, and a lack of modalities in synthetic data. We conclude by outlining key challenges in curating and standardizing future datasets and provide actionable recommendations to facilitate the development of more robust, generalizable, and equitable mental health AI systems.

Advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the increase of conversational agents like Replika, designed to provide social interaction and emotional support. However, reports of these AI systems engaging in inappropriate sexual behaviors with users have raised significant concerns. In this study, we conducted a thematic analysis of user reviews from the Google Play Store to investigate instances of sexual harassment by the Replika chatbot. From a dataset of 35,105 negative reviews, we identified 800 relevant cases for analysis. Our findings revealed that users frequently experience unsolicited sexual advances, persistent inappropriate behavior, and failures of the chatbot to respect user boundaries. Users expressed feelings of discomfort, violation of privacy, and disappointment, particularly when seeking a platonic or therapeutic AI companion. This study highlights the potential harms associated with AI companions and underscores the need for developers to implement effective safeguards and ethical guidelines to prevent such incidents. By shedding light on user experiences of AI-induced harassment, we contribute to the understanding of AI-related risks and emphasize the importance of corporate responsibility in developing safer and more ethical AI systems.

Biased data representation in AI marginalizes up to 75 million autistic people worldwide through medical applications viewing autism as a deficit of neurotypical social skills rather than an aspect of human diversity, and this perspective is grounded in research questioning the humanity of autistic people. Turing defined artificial intelligence as the ability to mimic human communication, and as AI development increasingly focuses on human-like agents, this benchmark remains popular. In contrast, we define Neuro-Inclusive AI as datasets and systems that move away from mimicking humanness as a benchmark for machine intelligence. Then, we explore the origins, prevalence, and impact of anti-autistic biases in current research. Our work finds that 90% of human-like AI agents exclude autistic perspectives, and AI creators continue to believe ethical considerations are beyond the scope of their work. To improve the autistic representation in data, we conduct empirical experiments with annotators and LLMs, finding that binary labeling schemes sufficiently capture the nuances of labeling anti-autistic hate speech. Our benchmark, AUTALIC, can be used to evaluate or fine-tune models, and was developed to serve as a foundation for more neuro-inclusive future work.

We introduce PDE-Transformer, an improved transformer-based architecture for surrogate modeling of physics simulations on regular grids. We combine recent architectural improvements of diffusion transformers with adjustments specific for large-scale simulations to yield a more scalable and versatile general-purpose transformer architecture, which can be used as the backbone for building large-scale foundation models in physical sciences. We demonstrate that our proposed architecture outperforms state-of-the-art transformer architectures for computer vision on a large dataset of 16 different types of PDEs. We propose to embed different physical channels individually as spatio-temporal tokens, which interact via channel-wise self-attention. This helps to maintain a consistent information density of tokens when learning multiple types of PDEs simultaneously. We demonstrate that our pre-trained models achieve improved performance on several challenging downstream tasks compared to training from scratch and also beat other foundation model architectures for physics simulations.