Output from generative AI such as ChatGPT, can be repetitive and biased. But more worrying is that this output can mysteriously tip mid-response from good (correct) to bad (misleading or wrong) without the user noticing. In 2024 alone, this reportedly caused $67 billion in losses and several deaths. Establishing a mathematical mapping to a multispin thermal system, we reveal a hidden tipping instability at the scale of the AI's 'atom' (basic Attention head). We derive a simple but essentially exact formula for this tipping point which shows directly the impact of a user's prompt choice and the AI's training bias. We then show how the output tipping can get amplified by the AI's multilayer architecture. As well as helping improve AI transparency, explainability and performance, our results open a path to quantifying users' AI risk and legal liabilities.

Academic laboratories face mounting resource constraints: budgets are tightening, grant overheads are potentially being capped, and the market rate for data-science talent significantly outstrips university compensation. Vibe coding, which is structured, prompt-driven code generation with large language models (LLMs) embedded in reproducible workflows, offers one pragmatic response. It aims to compress the idea-to-analysis timeline, reduce staffing pressure on specialized data roles, and maintain rigorous, version-controlled outputs. This article defines the vibe coding concept, situates it against the current academic resourcing crisis, details a beginner-friendly toolchain for its implementation, and analyzes inherent limitations that necessitate governance and mindful application.

The emergence of Symbiotic AI (SAI) introduces new challenges to ethical decision-making as it deepens human-AI collaboration. As symbiosis grows, AI systems pose greater ethical risks, including harm to human rights and trust. Ethical Risk Assessment (ERA) thus becomes crucial for guiding decisions that minimize such risks. However, ERA is hindered by uncertainty, vagueness, and incomplete information, and morality itself is context-dependent and imprecise. This motivates the need for a flexible, transparent, yet robust framework for ERA. Our work supports ethical decision-making by quantitatively assessing and prioritizing multiple ethical risks so that artificial agents can select actions aligned with human values and acceptable risk levels. We introduce ff4ERA, a fuzzy framework that integrates Fuzzy Logic, the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP), and Certainty Factors (CF) to quantify ethical risks via an Ethical Risk Score (ERS) for each risk type. The final ERS combines the FAHP-derived weight, propagated CF, and risk level. The framework offers a robust mathematical approach for collaborative ERA modeling and systematic, step-by-step analysis. A case study confirms that ff4ERA yields context-sensitive, ethically meaningful risk scores reflecting both expert input and sensor-based evidence. Risk scores vary consistently with relevant factors while remaining robust to unrelated inputs. Local sensitivity analysis shows predictable, mostly monotonic behavior across perturbations, and global Sobol analysis highlights the dominant influence of expert-defined weights and certainty factors, validating the model design. Overall, the results demonstrate ff4ERA ability to produce interpretable, traceable, and risk-aware ethical assessments, enabling what-if analyses and guiding designers in calibrating membership functions and expert judgments for reliable ethical decision support.

Image-based AI models are increasingly deployed across a wide range of domains, including healthcare, security, and consumer applications. However, many image datasets carry sensitive or proprietary content, raising critical concerns about unauthorized data usage. Data owners therefore need reliable mechanisms to verify whether their proprietary data has been misused to train third-party models. Existing solutions, such as backdoor watermarking and membership inference, face inherent trade-offs between verification effectiveness and preservation of data integrity. In this work, we propose HoneyImage, a novel method for dataset ownership verification in image recognition models. HoneyImage selectively modifies a small number of hard samples to embed imperceptible yet verifiable traces, enabling reliable ownership verification while maintaining dataset integrity. Extensive experiments across four benchmark datasets and multiple model architectures show that HoneyImage consistently achieves strong verification accuracy with minimal impact on downstream performance while maintaining imperceptible. The proposed HoneyImage method could provide data owners with a practical mechanism to protect ownership over valuable image datasets, encouraging safe sharing and unlocking the full transformative potential of data-driven AI.

In an age of fast-paced technological change, patents have evolved into not only legal mechanisms of intellectual property, but also structured storage containers of knowledge full of metadata, categories, and formal innovation. This chapter proposes to reframe patents in the context of information science, by focusing on patents as knowledge artifacts, and by seeing patents as fundamentally tied to the global movement of scientific and technological knowledge. With a focus on three areas, the inventions of AIs, biotech patents, and international competition with patents, this work considers how new technologies are challenging traditional notions of inventorship, access, and moral accountability.The chapter provides a critical analysis of AI's implications for patent authorship and prior art searches, ownership issues arising from proprietary claims in biotechnology to ethical dilemmas, and the problem of using patents for strategic advantage in a global context of innovation competition. In this analysis, the chapter identified the importance of organizing information, creating metadata standards about originality, implementing retrieval systems to access previous works, and ethical contemplation about patenting unseen relationships in innovation ecosystems. Ultimately, the chapter called for a collaborative, transparent, and ethically-based approach in managing knowledge in the patenting environment highlighting the role for information professionals and policy to contribute to access equity in innovation.

In biomedical science, review by a Research Ethics Committee (REC) is an indispensable way of protecting human subjects from harm. However, in social science and the humanities, mandatory ethics compliance has long been met with scepticism as biomedical models of ethics can map poorly onto methodologies involving complex socio-political and cultural considerations. As a result, tailored ethics training and support as well as access to RECs with the necessary expertise is lacking in some areas, including parts of Europe and low- and middle-income countries. This paper suggests that Generative AI can meaningfully contribute to closing these gaps, illustrating this claim by presenting EthicAlly, a proof-of-concept prototype for an AI-powered ethics support system for social science and humanities researchers. Drawing on constitutional AI technology and a collaborative prompt development methodology, EthicAlly provides structured ethics assessment that incorporates both universal ethics principles and contextual and interpretive considerations relevant to most social science research. In supporting researchers in ethical research design and preparation for REC submission, this kind of system can also contribute to easing the burden on institutional RECs, without attempting to automate or replace human ethical oversight.

Web-enabled LLMs frequently answer queries without crediting the web pages they consume, creating an "attribution gap" - the difference between relevant URLs read and those actually cited. Drawing on approximately 14,000 real-world LMArena conversation logs with search-enabled LLM systems, we document three exploitation patterns: 1) No Search: 34% of Google Gemini and 24% of OpenAI GPT-4o responses are generated without explicitly fetching any online content; 2) No citation: Gemini provides no clickable citation source in 92% of answers; 3) High-volume, low-credit: Perplexity's Sonar visits approximately 10 relevant pages per query but cites only three to four. A negative binomial hurdle model shows that the average query answered by Gemini or Sonar leaves about 3 relevant websites uncited, whereas GPT-4o's tiny uncited gap is best explained by its selective log disclosures rather than by better attribution. Citation efficiency - extra citations provided per additional relevant web page visited - varies widely across models, from 0.19 to 0.45 on identical queries, underscoring that retrieval design, not technical limits, shapes ecosystem impact. We recommend a transparent LLM search architecture based on standardized telemetry and full disclosure of search traces and citation logs.

We present a novel framework addressing a critical vulnerability in Large Language Models (LLMs): the prevalence of factual inaccuracies within intermediate reasoning steps despite correct final answers. This phenomenon poses substantial risks in high-stakes domains including healthcare, legal analysis, and scientific research, where erroneous yet confidently presented reasoning can mislead users into dangerous decisions. Our framework integrates three core components: (1) a specialized fact-checking classifier trained on counterfactually augmented data to detect subtle factual inconsistencies within reasoning chains; (2) an enhanced Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) reinforcement learning approach that balances factuality, coherence, and structural correctness through multi-dimensional rewards; and (3) a mechanistic interpretability method examining how factuality improvements manifest in model activations during reasoning processes. Extensive evaluation across multi state-of-the-art models reveals concerning patterns: even leading models like Claude-3.7 and GPT-o1 demonstrate reasoning factual accuracy of only 81.93% and 82.57% respectively. Our approach significantly enhances factual robustness (up to 49.90% improvement) while maintaining or improving performance on challenging benchmarks including Math-500, AIME-2024, and GPQA. Furthermore, our neural activation-level analysis provides actionable insights into how factual enhancements reshape reasoning trajectories within model architectures, establishing foundations for future training methodologies that explicitly target factual robustness through activation-guided optimization.

Modern news is often comprehensive, weaving together information from diverse domains, including technology, finance, and agriculture. This very comprehensiveness creates a challenge for interpretation, as audiences typically possess specialized knowledge related to their expertise, age, or standpoint. Consequently, a reader might fully understand the financial implications of a story but fail to grasp or even actively misunderstand its legal or technological dimensions, resulting in critical comprehension gaps. In this work, we investigate how to identify these comprehension gaps and provide solutions to improve audiences' understanding of news content, particularly in the aspects of articles outside their primary domains of knowledge. We propose MADES, an agent-based framework designed to simulate societal communication. The framework utilizes diverse agents, each configured to represent a specific occupation or age group. Each agent is equipped with a memory system. These agents are then simulated to discuss the news. This process enables us to monitor and analyze their behavior and cognitive processes. Our findings indicate that the framework can identify confusions and misunderstandings within news content through its iterative discussion process. Based on these accurate identifications, the framework then designs supplementary material. We validated these outcomes using both statistical analysis and human evaluation, and the results show that agents exhibit significantly improved news understanding after receiving this supplementary material.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the ability to fairly resolve judicial issues is a prerequisite to ensure their trustworthiness. Based on theories of judicial fairness, we construct a comprehensive framework to measure LLM fairness, leading to a selection of 65 labels and 161 corresponding values. Applying this framework to the judicial system, we compile an extensive dataset, JudiFair, comprising 177,100 unique case facts. To achieve robust statistical inference, we develop three evaluation metrics, inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy, and introduce a method to assess the overall fairness of multiple LLMs across various labels. Through experiments with 16 LLMs, we uncover pervasive inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy across models, underscoring severe LLM judicial unfairness. Particularly, LLMs display notably more pronounced biases on demographic labels, with slightly less bias on substance labels compared to procedure ones. Interestingly, increased inconsistency correlates with reduced biases, but more accurate predictions exacerbate biases. While we find that adjusting the temperature parameter can influence LLM fairness, model size, release date, and country of origin do not exhibit significant effects on judicial fairness. Accordingly, we introduce a publicly available toolkit containing all datasets and code, designed to support future research in evaluating and improving LLM fairness.