Classical approaches often treat interaction as engineered product terms or as emergent patterns in flexible models, offering little control over how synergy or antagonism arises. We take a quantum-inspired view: following the Born rule (probability as squared amplitude), \emph{coherent} aggregation sums complex amplitudes before squaring, creating an interference cross-term, whereas an \emph{incoherent} proxy sums squared magnitudes and removes it. In a minimal linear-amplitude model, this cross-term equals the standard potential-outcome interaction contrast \(Δ_{\mathrm{INT}}\) in a \(2\times 2\) factorial design, giving relative phase a direct, mechanism-level control over synergy versus antagonism. We instantiate this idea in a lightweight \emph{Interference Kernel Classifier} (IKC) and introduce two diagnostics: \emph{Coherent Gain} (log-likelihood gain of coherent over the incoherent proxy) and \emph{Interference Information} (the induced Kullback-Leibler gap). A controlled phase sweep recovers the identity. On a high-interaction synthetic task (XOR), IKC outperforms strong baselines under paired, budget-matched comparisons; on real tabular data (\emph{Adult} and \emph{Bank Marketing}) it is competitive overall but typically trails the most capacity-rich baseline in paired differences. Holding learned parameters fixed, toggling aggregation from incoherent to coherent consistently improves negative log-likelihood, Brier score, and expected calibration error, with positive Coherent Gain on both datasets.

Understanding the interaction between different drugs (drug-drug interaction or DDI) is critical for ensuring patient safety and optimizing therapeutic outcomes. Existing DDI datasets primarily focus on textual information, overlooking multimodal data that reflect complex drug mechanisms. In this paper, we (1) introduce MUDI, a large-scale Multimodal biomedical dataset for Understanding pharmacodynamic Drug-drug Interactions, and (2) benchmark learning methods to study it. In brief, MUDI provides a comprehensive multimodal representation of drugs by combining pharmacological text, chemical formulas, molecular structure graphs, and images across 310,532 annotated drug pairs labeled as Synergism, Antagonism, or New Effect. Crucially, to effectively evaluate machine-learning based generalization, MUDI consists of unseen drug pairs in the test set. We evaluate benchmark models using both late fusion voting and intermediate fusion strategies. All data, annotations, evaluation scripts, and baselines are released under an open research license.

The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite behaviors or values. Far from being "bad" or "immoral," we consider whether antagonistic AI systems may sometimes have benefits to users, such as forcing users to confront their assumptions, build resilience, or develop healthier relational boundaries. Drawing from formative explorations and a speculative design workshop where participants designed fictional AI technologies that employ antagonism, we lay out a design space for antagonistic AI, articulating potential benefits, design techniques, and methods of embedding antagonistic elements into user experience. Finally, we discuss the many ethical challenges of this space and identify three dimensions for the responsible design of antagonistic AI -- consent, context, and framing.

Machine-learning algorithms can be fooled by small well-designed adversarial perturbations. This is reminiscent of cellular decision-making where ligands (called antagonists) prevent correct signaling, like in early immune recognition. We draw a formal analogy between neural networks used in machine learning and models of cellular decision-making (adaptive proofreading). We apply attacks from machine learning to simple decision-making models and show explicitly the correspondence to antagonism by weakly bound ligands. Such antagonism is absent in more nonlinear models, which inspires us to implement a biomimetic defense in neural networks filtering out adversarial perturbations.

Machine learning algorithms are sensitive to so-called adversarial perturbations. This is reminiscent of cellular decision-making where antagonist ligands may prevent correct signaling, like during the early immune response. We draw a formal analogy between neural networks used in machine learning and the general class of adaptive proofreading networks. We then apply simple adversarial strategies from machine learning to models of ligand discrimination. We show how kinetic proofreading leads to "boundary tilting" and identify three types of perturbation (adversarial, non adversarial and ambiguous). We then use a gradient-descent approach to compare different adaptive proofreading models, and we reveal the existence of two qualitatively different regimes characterized by the presence or absence of a critical point. These regimes are reminiscent of the "feature-to-prototype" transition identified in machine learning, corresponding to two strategies in ligand antagonism (broad vs. specialized). Overall, our work connects evolved cellular decision-making to classification in machine learning, showing that behaviours close to the decision boundary can be understood through the same mechanisms.

If you haven't encountered any reviews of Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's new bestseller Enlightenment Now--which would be amazing, given how many there have been--don't worry. I can summarize them in two paragraphs. The positive ones say Pinker argues convincingly that we should be deeply grateful for the Enlightenment and should put our stock in its legacy. A handful of European thinkers who were born a few centuries ago set our species firmly on the path of progress with their compelling commitment to science, reason, and humanism (where humanism means "maximizing human flourishing"). Things have indeed, as Pinker documents in great detail, gotten better in pretty much every way--materially, morally, politically--since then. And if we stay true to Enlightenment values, they'll keep getting better.