Military weapon systems and command-and-control infrastructure augmented by artificial intelligence (AI) have seen rapid development and deployment in recent years. However, the sociotechnical impacts of AI on combat systems, military decision-making, and the norms of warfare have been understudied. We focus on a specific subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions. We refer to this subset as AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI-LAWS) and argue that they introduce novel risks--including unanticipated escalation, poor reliability in unfamiliar environments, and erosion of human oversight--all of which threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research. These risks cannot be addressed by high-level policy alone; effective regulation must be grounded in the technical behavior of AI models. We argue that AI researchers must be involved throughout the regulatory lifecycle. Thus, we propose a clear, behavior-based definition of AILAWS--systems that introduce unique risks through their use of modern AI--as a foundation for technically grounded regulation, given that existing frameworks do not distinguish them from conventional LAWS. Using this definition, we propose several technically-informed policy directions and invite greater participation from the AI research community in military AI policy discussions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decisionmaking systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation--it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AIAct as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms--regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)--demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness.

In this piece, we reflect on AIES 2025, and outline the conversations and presentations from a discussion session on LLMs in the context of clinical usage and human rights. This is a crosspost from the latest issue of AI Matters, published by the ACM SIAGI. This year's conference on artificial intelligence, ethics and society (AIES) took place in the north of Madrid within the 180m-high tower block that forms the vertical campus of IE University. The event kicked off with a welcome from the chairs and organising committee members, with this opening session also featuring the conference best paper awards. Topics covered during the three-day event included mitigating bias, integrating AI into the workplace, evaluating LLMs in clinical settings, power dynamics in AI ecosystems, and dataset creation.

Enterprise AI hinges on high-accuracy outputs, requiring better data context, unified architectures, and rigorous measurement frameworks, says Bavesh Patel, senior vice president at Databricks, and Rajan Padmanabhan, unit technology officer at Infosys. Artificial intelligence may be dominating boardroom agendas, but many enterprises are discovering that the biggest obstacle to meaningful adoption is the state of their data. While consumer-facing AI tools have dazzled users with speed and ease, enterprise leaders are discovering that deploying AI at scale requires something far less glamorous but far more consequential: data infrastructure that is unified, governed, and fit for purpose. That gap between AI ambition and enterprise readiness is becoming one of the defining challenges of this next phase of digital transformation. As Bavesh Patel, senior vice president of Databricks, puts it, "the quality of that AI and how effective that AI is, is really dependent on information in your ...

In 2025, when Elon Musk joined the government as the de facto head of something called the "department of government efficiency", he declared that governments were poorly configured "big dumb machines". To the senator Ted Cruz, he explained that "the only way to reconcile the databases and get rid of waste and fraud is to actually look at the computers". Muskism came to Washington soaked in memes, adolescent boasts and sadistic victory dances over mass firings. Leading a team of teenage coders and mid-level managers drawn from his suite of companies, Musk aimed to enter the codebase and rewrite regulations and budget lines from within. He would drag the paper-pushing bureaucracy kicking and screaming into the digital 21st century, scanning the contents of cavernous rooms of filing cabinets and feeding the data into a single interoperable system. The undertaking combined features of private equity-led restructuring with startup management, shot through with the sensibility of gaming and rightwing culture war. To succeed, he would need "God mode", an overview of the whole. If the mandate of Doge was to "[modernise] federal technology and software to maximise governmental efficiency and productivity", in the words of the executive order that launched the initiative on 20 January 2025, the reality was a strengthening of the state's surveillance capacities. Over time, Musk had become convinced that the real bugs in the code were people, especially the non-white illegal immigrants whom he saw as pawns in a liberal scheme to corrupt democracy and beneficiaries of what he called "suicidal empathy". He understood empathy itself in coding terms.

The promise of autonomous agentic AI requires significant changes in the governance landscape. Parents of young children face a lot of fears about developmental milestones, from infancy through adulthood. The number of months it takes a baby to learn to talk or walk is often used as a benchmark for wellness, or an indicator of additional tests needed to properly diagnose a potential health condition. A parent rejoices over the child's first steps and then realizes how much has changed when the child can quickly walk outside, instead of slowly crawling in a safe area inside. Suddenly safety, including childproofing, takes a completely different lens and approach. Generative AI hit toddlerhood between December 2025 and January 2026 with the introduction of no code tools from multiple vendors and the debut of OpenClaw, an open source personal agent posted on GitHub.

RWDS Big Questions: how do we balance innovation and regulation in the world of AI? AI development is accelerating, while regulation moves more deliberately. That tension creates a core challenge: how do we maintain momentum without breaking the things that matter? The aim isn't to slow innovation unnecessarily, but to ensure progress happens at a pace that protects individuals and society. Responsible actors should not be disadvantaged -- yet safeguards are essential to maintain trust. For the latest video in our RWDS Big Questions series, our panel explores this delicate balance.

In the past, MI datasets were frequently proprietary, confined to particular institutions, and stored in private repositories. In this particular setting, there is a pressing need for alternative models of data sharing, documentation, and governance. Within this context,theemergence ofCommunityContributed Platforms (CCPs) presented a potential for the public sharing of medical datasets.

The tech bros might show more humility in Delhi - but will they make AI any safer? Those who shout the loudest about artificial intelligence tend to be in the West, notably the US and Europe. So it's significant that a gathering of powerful leaders is being held in the Global South, a region of the world that runs the risk of being left behind in the AI race. Tech bosses, politicians, scientists, academics and campaigners are meeting at the AI Impact Summit in India this week for top-level discussions about what the world should be doing to try to marshal the AI revolution in the right direction. At last year's AI Action Summit, as it was then known, an ugly power struggle broke out between some Western countries over who should be in charge.

AI is no longer just a translator or image recognizer. Today, we engage with systems that remember our preferences, proactively manage our calendars, and even provide emotional support. They build ongoing bonds with users. They change their behavior based on our habits. They don't just wait for commands; they suggest next steps.