Intelligent algorithms increasingly shape the content we encounter and engage with online. TikTok's For You feed exemplifies extreme algorithm-driven curation, tailoring the stream of video content almost exclusively based on users' explicit and implicit interactions with the platform. Despite growing attention, the dynamics of content amplification on TikTok remain largely unquantified. How quickly, and to what extent, does TikTok's algorithm amplify content aligned with users' interests? To address these questions, we conduct a sock-puppet audit, deploying bots with different interests to engage with TikTok's "For You" feed. Our findings reveal that content aligned with the bots' interests undergoes strong amplification, with rapid reinforcement typically occurring within the first 200 videos watched. While amplification is consistently observed across all interests, its intensity varies by interest, indicating the emergence of topic-specific biases. Time series analyses and Markov models uncover distinct phases of recommendation dynamics, including persistent content reinforcement and a gradual decline in content diversity over time. Although TikTok's algorithm preserves some content diversity, we find a strong negative correlation between amplification and exploration: as the amplification of interest-aligned content increases, engagement with unseen hashtags declines. These findings contribute to discussions on socio-algorithmic feedback loops in the digital age and the trade-offs between personalization and content diversity.

The rapid development of advanced AI agents and the imminent deployment of many instances of these agents will give rise to multi-agent systems of unprecedented complexity. These systems pose novel and under-explored risks. In this report, we provide a structured taxonomy of these risks by identifying three key failure modes (miscoordination, conflict, and collusion) based on agents' incentives, as well as seven key risk factors (information asymmetries, network effects, selection pressures, destabilising dynamics, commitment problems, emergent agency, and multi-agent security) that can underpin them. We highlight several important instances of each risk, as well as promising directions to help mitigate them. By anchoring our analysis in a range of real-world examples and experimental evidence, we illustrate the distinct challenges posed by multi-agent systems and their implications for the safety, governance, and ethics of advanced AI.

Novel capacities of generative AI to analyze and generate cultural artifacts raise inevitable questions about the nature and value of artistic education and human expertise. Has AI already leveled the playing field between professional artists and laypeople, or do trained artistic expressive capacity, curation skills and experience instead enhance the ability to use these new tools? In this pre-registered study, we conduct experimental comparisons between 50 active artists and a demographically matched sample of laypeople. We designed two tasks to approximate artistic practice for testing their capabilities in both faithful and creative image creation: replicating a reference image, and moving as far away as possible from it. We developed a bespoke platform where participants used a modern text-to-image model to complete both tasks. We also collected and compared participants' sentiments towards AI. On average, artists produced more faithful and creative outputs than their lay counterparts, although only by a small margin. While AI may ease content creation, professional expertise is still valuable - even within the confined space of generative AI itself. Finally, we also explored how well an exemplary vision-capable large language model (GPT-4o) would complete the same tasks, if given the role of an image generation agent, and found it performed on par in copying but outperformed even artists in the creative task. The very best results were still produced by humans in both tasks. These outcomes highlight the importance of integrating artistic skills with AI training to prepare artists and other visual professionals for a technologically evolving landscape. We see a potential in collaborative synergy with generative AI, which could reshape creative industries and education in the arts.

What is appropriateness? Humans navigate a multi-scale mosaic of interlocking notions of what is appropriate for different situations. We act one way with our friends, another with our family, and yet another in the office. Likewise for AI, appropriate behavior for a comedy-writing assistant is not the same as appropriate behavior for a customer-service representative. What determines which actions are appropriate in which contexts? And what causes these standards to change over time? Since all judgments of AI appropriateness are ultimately made by humans, we need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it. This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.

While AI models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in constrained domains like game strategy, their potential for genuine creativity in open-ended domains like art remains debated. We explore this question by examining how AI can transcend human cognitive limitations in visual art creation. Our research hypothesizes that visual art contains a vast unexplored space of conceptual combinations, constrained not by inherent incompatibility, but by cognitive limitations imposed by artists' cultural, temporal, geographical and social contexts. To test this hypothesis, we present the Alien Recombination method, a novel approach utilizing fine-tuned large language models to identify and generate concept combinations that lie beyond human cognitive availability. The system models and deliberately counteracts human availability bias, the tendency to rely on immediately accessible examples, to discover novel artistic combinations. This system not only produces combinations that have never been attempted before within our dataset but also identifies and generates combinations that are cognitively unavailable to all artists in the domain. Furthermore, we translate these combinations into visual representations, enabling the exploration of subjective perceptions of novelty. Our findings suggest that cognitive unavailability is a promising metric for optimizing artistic novelty, outperforming merely temperature scaling without additional evaluation criteria. This approach uses generative models to connect previously unconnected ideas, providing new insight into the potential of framing AI-driven creativity as a combinatorial problem.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have produced systems capable of increasingly sophisticated performance on cognitive tasks. However, AI systems still struggle in critical ways: unpredictable and novel environments (robustness), lack of transparency in their reasoning (explainability), challenges in communication and commitment (cooperation), and risks due to potential harmful actions (safety). We argue that these shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. Drawing from cognitive and social sciences, we define wisdom as the ability to navigate intractable problems - those that are ambiguous, radically uncertain, novel, chaotic, or computationally explosive - through effective task-level and metacognitive strategies. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition - the ability to reflect on and regulate one's thought processes - is underdeveloped in AI systems. In humans, metacognitive strategies such as recognizing the limits of one's knowledge, considering diverse perspectives, and adapting to context are essential for wise decision-making. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety. By focusing on developing wise AI, we suggest an alternative to aligning AI with specific human values - a task fraught with conceptual and practical difficulties. Instead, wise AI systems can thoughtfully navigate complex situations, account for diverse human values, and avoid harmful actions. We discuss potential approaches to building wise AI, including benchmarking metacognitive abilities and training AI systems to employ wise reasoning. Prioritizing metacognition in AI research will lead to systems that act not only intelligently but also wisely in complex, real-world situations.

The deployment of AI systems for welfare benefit allocation allows for accelerated decision-making and faster provision of critical help, but has already led to an increase in unfair benefit denials and false fraud accusations. Collecting data in the US and the UK (N = 2449), we explore the public acceptability of such speed-accuracy trade-offs in populations of claimants and non-claimants. We observe a general willingness to trade off speed gains for modest accuracy losses, but this aggregate view masks notable divergences between claimants and non-claimants. Although welfare claimants comprise a relatively small proportion of the general population (e.g., 20% in the US representative sample), this vulnerable group is much less willing to accept AI deployed in welfare systems, raising concerns that solely using aggregate data for calibration could lead to policies misaligned with stakeholder preferences. Our study further uncovers asymmetric insights between claimants and non-claimants. The latter consistently overestimate claimant willingness to accept speed-accuracy trade-offs, even when financially incentivized for accurate perspective-taking. This suggests that policy decisions influenced by the dominant voice of non-claimants, however well-intentioned, may neglect the actual preferences of those directly affected by welfare AI systems. Our findings underline the need for stakeholder engagement and transparent communication in the design and deployment of these systems, particularly in contexts marked by power imbalances.

The increasing prevalence of image-altering filters on social media and video conferencing technologies has raised concerns about the ethical and psychological implications of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to manipulate our perception of others. In this study, we specifically investigate the potential impact of blur filters, a type of appearance-altering technology, on individuals' behavior towards others. Our findings consistently demonstrate a significant increase in selfish behavior directed towards individuals whose appearance is blurred, suggesting that blur filters can facilitate moral disengagement through depersonalization. These results emphasize the need for broader ethical discussions surrounding AI technologies that modify our perception of others, including issues of transparency, consent, and the awareness of being subject to appearance manipulation by others. We also emphasize the importance of anticipatory experiments in informing the development of responsible guidelines and policies prior to the widespread adoption of such technologies.

People are not very good at detecting lies, which may explain why they refrain from accusing others of lying, given the social costs attached to false accusations - both for the accuser and the accused. Here we consider how this social balance might be disrupted by the availability of lie-detection algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence. Will people elect to use lie detection algorithms that perform better than humans, and if so, will they show less restraint in their accusations? We built a machine learning classifier whose accuracy (67\%) was significantly better than human accuracy (50\%) in a lie-detection task and conducted an incentivized lie-detection experiment in which we measured participants' propensity to use the algorithm, as well as the impact of that use on accusation rates. We find that the few people (33\%) who elect to use the algorithm drastically increase their accusation rates (from 25\% in the baseline condition up to 86% when the algorithm flags a statement as a lie). They make more false accusations (18pp increase), but at the same time, the probability of a lie remaining undetected is much lower in this group (36pp decrease). We consider individual motivations for using lie detection algorithms and the social implications of these algorithms.

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: ``no cutting in line.'' We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard ``dual process'' theories of moral judgment.