Generative AI systems now mediate newsfeeds, search rankings, and creative content for hundreds of millions of users, positioning a handful of private firms as de-facto arbiters of truth. Drawing on a comparative-historical lens, this article juxtaposes the Galileo Affair, a touchstone of clerical knowledge control, with contemporary Big-Tech content moderation. We integrate Foucault's power/knowledge thesis, Weber's authority types (extended to a rational-technical and emerging agentic-technical modality), and Floridi's Dataism to analyze five recurrent dimensions: disciplinary power, authority modality, data pluralism, trust versus reliance, and resistance pathways. Primary sources (Inquisition records; platform transparency reports) and recent empirical studies on AI trust provide the evidentiary base. Findings show strong structural convergences: highly centralized gatekeeping, legitimacy claims couched in transcendent principles, and systematic exclusion of marginal voices. Divergences lie in temporal velocity, global scale, and the widening gap between public reliance and trust in AI systems. Ethical challenges cluster around algorithmic opacity, linguistic inequity, bias feedback loops, and synthetic misinformation. We propose a four-pillar governance blueprint: (1) a mandatory international model-registry with versioned policy logs, (2) representation quotas and regional observatories to de-center English-language hegemony, (3) mass critical-AI literacy initiatives, and (4) public-private support for community-led data trusts. Taken together, these measures aim to narrow the trust-reliance gap and prevent GenAI from hardcoding a twenty-first-century digital orthodoxy.

In democracies, major policy decisions typically require some form of majority or consensus, so elites must secure mass support to govern. Historically, elites could shape support only through limited instruments like schooling and mass media; advances in AI-driven persuasion sharply reduce the cost and increase the precision of shaping public opinion, making the distribution of preferences itself an object of deliberate design. We develop a dynamic model in which elites choose how much to reshape the distribution of policy preferences, subject to persuasion costs and a majority rule constraint. With a single elite, any optimal intervention tends to push society toward more polarized opinion profiles - a ``polarization pull'' - and improvements in persuasion technology accelerate this drift. When two opposed elites alternate in power, the same technology also creates incentives to park society in ``semi-lock'' regions where opinions are more cohesive and harder for a rival to overturn, so advances in persuasion can either heighten or dampen polarization depending on the environment. Taken together, cheaper persuasion technologies recast polarization as a strategic instrument of governance rather than a purely emergent social byproduct, with important implications for democratic stability as AI capabilities advance.

While recent developments in large language models have improved bias detection and classification, sensitive subjects like religion still present challenges because even minor errors can result in severe misunderstandings. In particular, multilingual models often misrepresent religions and have difficulties being accurate in religious contexts. To address this, we introduce BRAND: Bilingual Religious Accountable Norm Dataset, which focuses on the four main religions of South Asia: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam, containing over 2,400 entries, and we used three different types of prompts in both English and Bengali. Our results indicate that models perform better in English than in Bengali and consistently display bias toward Islam, even when answering religion-neutral questions. These findings highlight persistent bias in multilingual models when similar questions are asked in different languages. We further connect our findings to the broader issues in HCI regarding religion and spirituality.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) language technologies, particularly generative AI (GenAI) chatbots accessible via conversational interfaces, is transforming digital interactions. While these tools hold societal promise, they also risk widening digital divides due to uneven adoption and low awareness of their limitations. This study presents the first comprehensive empirical mapping of GenAI adoption, usage patterns, and literacy in Italy, based on newly collected survey data from 1,906 Italian-speaking adults. Our findings reveal widespread adoption for both work and personal use, including sensitive tasks like emotional support and medical advice. Crucially, GenAI is supplanting other technologies to become a primary information source: this trend persists despite low user digital literacy, posing a risk as users struggle to recognize errors or misinformation. Moreover, we identify a significant gender divide -- particularly pronounced in older generations -- where women are half as likely to adopt GenAI and use it less frequently than men. While we find literacy to be a key predictor of adoption, it only partially explains this disparity, suggesting that other barriers are at play. Overall, our data provide granular insights into the multipurpose usage of GenAI, highlighting the dual need for targeted educational initiatives and further investigation into the underlying barriers to equitable participation that competence alone cannot explain.

Activation steering has emerged as a powerful method for guiding the behavior of generative models towards desired outcomes such as toxicity mitigation. However, most existing methods apply interventions uniformly across all inputs, degrading model performance when steering is unnecessary. We introduce Dynamically Scaled Activation Steering (DSAS), a method-agnostic steering framework that decouples when to steer from how to steer. DSAS adaptively modulates the strength of existing steering transformations across layers and inputs, intervening strongly only when undesired behavior is detected. At generation time, DSAS computes context-dependent scaling factors that selectively adjust the strength of any steering method. We also show how DSAS can be jointly optimized end-to-end together with the steering function. When combined with existing steering methods, DSAS consistently improves the Pareto front with respect to steering alone, achieving a better trade-off between toxicity mitigation and utility preservation. We further demonstrate DSAS's generality by applying it to a text-to-image diffusion model, showing how adaptive steering allows the modulation of specific concepts. Finally, DSAS introduces minimal computational overhead while improving interpretability, pinpointing which tokens require steering and by how much.

Narratives are the cognitive and emotional scaffolds of propaganda. They organize isolated persuasive techniques into coherent stories that justify actions, attribute blame, and evoke identification with ideological camps. In this paper, we propose a novel fine-grained narrative classification in biased news articles. We also explore article-bias classification as the precursor task to narrative classification and fine-grained persuasive technique identification. We develop INDI-PROP, the first ideologically grounded fine-grained narrative dataset with multi-level annotation for analyzing propaganda in Indian news media. Our dataset INDI-PROP comprises 1,266 articles focusing on two polarizing socio-political events in recent times: CAA and the Farmers' protest. Each article is annotated at three hierarchical levels: (i) ideological article-bias (pro-government, pro-opposition, neutral), (ii) event-specific fine-grained narrative frames anchored in ideological polarity and communicative intent, and (iii) persuasive techniques. We propose FANTA and TPTC, two GPT-4o-mini guided multi-hop prompt-based reasoning frameworks for the bias, narrative, and persuasive technique classification. FANTA leverages multi-layered communicative phenomena by integrating information extraction and contextual framing for hierarchical reasoning. On the other hand, TPTC adopts systematic decomposition of persuasive cues via a two-stage approach. Our evaluation suggests substantial improvement over underlying baselines in each case.

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

A quarter century ago, Wikipedia's decentralized, crowdsourced, and consensus-driven model replaced the centralized, expert-driven, and authority-based standard for encyclopedic knowledge curation. The emergence of generative AI encyclopedias, such as Grokipedia, possibly presents another potential shift in epistemic evolution. This study investigates whether AI- and human-curated encyclopedias rely on the same foundations of authority. We conducted a multi-scale comparative analysis of the citation networks from 72 matched article pairs, which cite a total of almost 60,000 sources. Using an 8-category epistemic classification, we mapped the "epistemic profiles" of the articles on each platform. Our findings reveal several quantitative and qualitative differences in how knowledge is sourced and encyclopedia claims are epistemologically justified. Grokipedia replaces Wikipedia's heavy reliance on peer-reviewed "Academic & Scholarly" work with a notable increase in "User-generated" and "Civic organization" sources. Comparative network analyses further show that Grokipedia employs very different epistemological profiles when sourcing leisure topics (such as Sports and Entertainment) and more societal sensitive civic topics (such as Politics & Conflicts, Geographical Entities, and General Knowledge & Society). Finally, we find a "scaling-law for AI-generated knowledge sourcing" that shows a linear relationship between article length and citation density, which is distinct from collective human reference sourcing. We conclude that this first implementation of an LLM-based encyclopedia does not merely automate knowledge production but restructures it. Given the notable changes and the important role of encyclopedias, we suggest the continuation and deepening of algorithm audits, such as the one presented here, in order to understand the ongoing epistemological shifts.

Causal attributions are claims that link an outcome to a cause (Kirfel et al., 2022). Causality is so embedded in human reasoning that causal attributions have been shown to emerge immediately in times of crisis (Graham and Singh, 2024), as well as offered spontaneously when people are asked to think about political issues (Iyengar, 1987). Furthermore, because causal attributions are relational, rather than treating actors and events as isolated, they highlight the underlying relational reasoning people use to connect events, assign responsibility, and justify actions (V ossing, 2023). Framing is fundamentally a process of making causal explanations, or communicating causal attributions: "[Frames] define problems-determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of common cultural values; diagnose causes-identify the forces creating the problem; make moral judgments-evaluate causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies-offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects."(Entman,

Recent studies have demonstrated that some Large Language Models exhibit choice-supportive bias (CSB) when performing evaluations, systematically favoring their chosen options and potentially compromising the objectivity of AI-assisted decision making. While existing debiasing approaches primarily target demographic and social biases, methods for addressing cognitive biases in LLMs remain largely unexplored. In this work, we present the first solution to address CSB through Reasoning Dependency Generation (RDG), a novel framework for generating unbiased reasoning data to mitigate choice-supportive bias through fine-tuning. RDG automatically constructs balanced reasoning QA pairs, explicitly (un)modeling the dependencies between choices, evidences, and justifications. Our approach is able to generate a large-scale dataset of QA pairs across domains, incorporating Contextual Dependency Data and Dependency Decouple Data. Experiments show that LLMs fine-tuned on RDG-generated data demonstrate a 81.5% improvement in memory-based experiments and 94.3% improvement in the evaluation-based experiment, while maintaining similar performance on standard BBQ benchmarks. This work pioneers an approach for addressing cognitive biases in LLMs and contributes to the development of more reliable AI-assisted decision support systems.