Whether and how to regulate AI is one of the defining questions of our times - a question that is being debated locally, nationally, and internationally. We argue that much of this debate is proceeding on a false premise. Specifically, our article challenges the prevailing academic consensus that the European Union's AI regulatory framework is fundamentally rights-driven and the correlative presumption that other rights-regarding nations should therefore follow Europe's lead in AI regulation. Rather than taking rights language in EU rules and regulations at face value, we show how EU AI regulation is the logical outgrowth of a particular cultural, political, and historical context. We show that although instruments like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act invoke the language of fundamental rights, these rights are instrumentalized - used as rhetorical cover for governance tools that address systemic risks and maintain institutional stability. As such, we reject claims that the EU's regulatory framework and the substance of its rules should be adopted as universal imperatives and transplanted to other liberal democracies. To add weight to our argument from historical context, we conduct a comparative analysis of AI regulation in five contested domains: data privacy, cybersecurity, healthcare, labor, and misinformation. This EU-US comparison shows that the EU's regulatory architecture is not meaningfully rights-based. Our article's key intervention in AI policy debates is not to suggest that the current American regulatory model is necessarily preferable but that the presumed legitimacy of the EU's AI regulatory approach must be abandoned.

We present a novel form of scalable knowledge representation about agents in a simulated democracy, e-polis, where real users respond to social challenges associated with democratic institutions, structured as Smart Spatial Types, a new type of Smart Building that changes architectural form according to the philosophical doctrine of a visitor. At the end of the game players vote on the Smart City that results from their collective choices. Our approach uses deductive systems in an unusual way: by integrating a model of democracy with a model of a Smart City we are able to prove quality aspects of the simulated democracy in different urban and social settings, while adding ease and flexibility to the development. Second, we can infer and reason with abstract knowledge, which is a limitation of the Unity platform; third, our system enables real-time decision-making and adaptation of the game flow based on the player's abstract state, paving the road to explainability. Scalability is achieved by maintaining a dual-layer knowledge representation mechanism for reasoning about the simulated democracy that functions in a similar way to a two-level cache. The lower layer knows about the current state of the game by continually processing a high rate of events produced by the in-built physics engine of the Unity platform, e.g., it knows of the position of a player in space, in terms of his coordinates x,y,z as well as their choices for each challenge. The higher layer knows of easily-retrievable, user-defined abstract knowledge about current and historical states, e.g., it knows of the political doctrine of a Smart Spatial Type, a player's philosophical doctrine, and the collective philosophical doctrine of a community players with respect to current social issues.

This literature review interrogates the intersections between artificial intelligence, poetry, and art, offering a comprehensive exploration of both historical evolution and current debates in digital creative practices. It traces the development of computer-generated poetry from early template-based systems to generative models, critically assessing evaluative frameworks such as adaptations of the Turing Test, the FACE model, and ProFTAP. It also examines how these frameworks endeavour to measure creativity, semantic coherence, and cultural relevance in AI-generated texts, whilst highlighting the persistent challenges in replicating the nuance of human poetic expression. The review contributes a Marketing Theory discussion that deconstructs the figurative marketing narratives employed by AI companies, which utilise sanitised language and anthropomorphic metaphors to humanise their technologies. This discussion reveals the reductive nature of such narratives and underscores the tension between algorithmic precision and the realities of human creativity.The review also incorporates an auto-ethnographic account that offers a self-reflexive commentary on its own composition. By acknowledging the use of AI in crafting this review, the auto-ethnographic account destabilises conventional notions of authorship and objectivity, resonating with deconstruction and challenging logocentric assumptions in academic discourse. Ultimately, the review calls for a re-evaluation of creative processes that recognises the interdependence of technological innovation and human subjectivity. It advocates for interdisciplinary dialogue addressing ethical, cultural, and philosophical concerns, while reimagining the boundaries of artistic production.

Visual foundation models (VFMs) have become increasingly popular due to their state-of-the-art performance. However, interpretability remains crucial for critical applications. In this sense, self-explainable models (SEM) aim to provide interpretable classifiers that decompose predictions into a weighted sum of interpretable concepts. Despite their promise, recent studies have shown that these explanations often lack faithfulness. In this work, we combine VFMs with a novel prototypical architecture and specialized training objectives. By training only a lightweight head (approximately 1M parameters) on top of frozen VFMs, our approach (ProtoFM) offers an efficient and interpretable solution. Evaluations demonstrate that our approach achieves competitive classification performance while outperforming existing models across a range of interpretability metrics derived from the literature. Code is available at https://github.com/hturbe/proto-fm.

The rapid adoption of open source machine learning (ML) datasets and models exposes today's AI applications to critical risks like data poisoning and supply chain attacks across the ML lifecycle. With growing regulatory pressure to address these issues through greater transparency, ML model vendors face challenges balancing these requirements against confidentiality for data and intellectual property needs. We propose Atlas, a framework that enables fully attestable ML pipelines. Atlas leverages open specifications for data and software supply chain provenance to collect verifiable records of model artifact authenticity and end-to-end lineage metadata. Atlas combines trusted hardware and transparency logs to enhance metadata integrity, preserve data confidentiality, and limit unauthorized access during ML pipeline operations, from training through deployment. Our prototype implementation of Atlas integrates several open-source tools to build an ML lifecycle transparency system, and assess the practicality of Atlas through two case study ML pipelines.

Faithful explanations are essential for machine learning models in high-stakes applications. Inherently interpretable models are well-suited for these applications because they naturally provide faithful explanations by revealing their decision logic. However, model designers often need to keep these models proprietary to maintain their value. This creates a tension: we need models that are interpretable--allowing human decision-makers to understand and justify predictions, but not transparent, so that the model's decision boundary is not easily replicated by attackers. Shielding the model's decision boundary is particularly challenging alongside the requirement of completely faithful explanations, since such explanations reveal the true logic of the model for an entire subspace around each query point. This work provides an approach, FaithfulDefense, that creates model explanations for logical models that are completely faithful, yet reveal as little as possible about the decision boundary. FaithfulDefense is based on a maximum set cover formulation, and we provide multiple formulations for it, taking advantage of submodularity.

This research describes a novel approach to evaluating hedging behaviour in large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Hedging and non-affirmation are behaviours that express ambiguity or a lack of clear endorsement on specific statements. These behaviours are undesirable in certain contexts, such as queries about whether different groups are entitled to specific human rights; since all people are entitled to human rights. Here, we present the first systematic attempt to measure these behaviours in the context of human rights, with a particular focus on between-group comparisons. To this end, we design a novel prompt set on human rights in the context of different national or social identities. We develop metrics to capture hedging and non-affirmation behaviours and then measure whether LLMs exhibit demographic parity when responding to the queries. We present results on three leading LLMs and find that all models exhibit some demographic disparities in how they attribute human rights between different identity groups. Futhermore, there is high correlation between different models in terms of how disparity is distributed amongst identities, with identities that have high disparity in one model also facing high disparity in both the other models. While baseline rates of hedging and non-affirmation differ, these disparities are consistent across queries that vary in ambiguity and they are robust across variations of the precise query wording. Our findings highlight the need for work to explicitly align LLMs to human rights principles, and to ensure that LLMs endorse the human rights of all groups equally.

This study investigates the impact of localized updates to large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of knowledge editing - a task aimed at incorporating or modifying specific facts without altering broader model capabilities. We first show that across different post-training interventions like continuous pre-training, full fine-tuning and LORA-based fine-tuning, the Frobenius norm of the updated matrices always increases. This increasing norm is especially detrimental for localized knowledge editing, where only a subset of matrices are updated in a model . We reveal a consistent phenomenon across various editing techniques, including fine-tuning, hypernetwork-based approaches, and locate-and-edit methods: the norm of the updated matrix invariably increases with successive updates. Such growth disrupts model balance, particularly when isolated matrices are updated while the rest of the model remains static, leading to potential instability and degradation of downstream performance. Upon deeper investigations of the intermediate activation vectors, we find that the norm of internal activations decreases and is accompanied by shifts in the subspaces occupied by these activations, which shows that these activation vectors now occupy completely different regions in the representation space compared to the unedited model. With our paper, we highlight the technical challenges with continuous and localized sequential knowledge editing and their implications for maintaining model stability and utility.

Paywalls, licenses and copyright rules often restrict the broad dissemination and reuse of scientific knowledge. We take the position that it is both legally and technically feasible to extract the scientific knowledge in scholarly texts. Current methods, like text embeddings, fail to reliably preserve factual content, and simple paraphrasing may not be legally sound. We urge the community to adopt a new idea: convert scholarly documents into Knowledge Units using LLMs. These units use structured data capturing entities, attributes and relationships without stylistic content. We provide evidence that Knowledge Units: (1) form a legally defensible framework for sharing knowledge from copyrighted research texts, based on legal analyses of German copyright law and U.S. Fair Use doctrine, and (2) preserve most (~95%) factual knowledge from original text, measured by MCQ performance on facts from the original copyrighted text across four research domains. Freeing scientific knowledge from copyright promises transformative benefits for scientific research and education by allowing language models to reuse important facts from copyrighted text. To support this, we share open-source tools for converting research documents into Knowledge Units. Overall, our work posits the feasibility of democratizing access to scientific knowledge while respecting copyright.

Machine learning programs, such as those performing inference, fine-tuning, and training of LLMs, are commonly delegated to untrusted compute providers. To provide correctness guarantees for the client, we propose adapting the cryptographic notion of refereed delegation to the machine learning setting. This approach enables a computationally limited client to delegate a program to multiple untrusted compute providers, with a guarantee of obtaining the correct result if at least one of them is honest. Refereed delegation of ML programs poses two technical hurdles: (1) an arbitration protocol to resolve disputes when compute providers disagree on the output, and (2) the ability to bitwise reproduce ML programs across different hardware setups, For (1), we design Verde, a dispute arbitration protocol that efficiently handles the large scale and graph-based computational model of modern ML programs. For (2), we build RepOps (Reproducible Operators), a library that eliminates hardware "non-determinism" by controlling the order of floating point operations performed on all hardware. Our implementation shows that refereed delegation achieves both strong guarantees for clients and practical overheads for compute providers.