Advances in artificial intelligence are creating a perfect storm for those seeking to spread disinformation at unprecedented speed and scale. And it's virtually impossible to detect. In 2016, hundreds of Russians filed into a modern office building on 55 Savushkina Street in St. Petersburg every day; they were part of the now-infamous troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency . Day and night, seven days a week, these employees would manually comment on news articles, post on Facebook and Twitter, and generally seek to rile up Americans about the then-upcoming presidential election. When the scheme was finally uncovered, there was widespread media coverage and Senate hearings, and social media platforms made changes in the way they verified users.

Document redaction in public authorities faces critical challenges as traditional manual approaches struggle to balance growing transparency demands with increasingly stringent data protection requirements. This study investigates the implementation of AI-driven document redaction within UK public authorities through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. While AI technologies offer potential solutions to redaction challenges, their actual implementation within public sector organizations remains underexplored. Based on responses from 44 public authorities across healthcare, government, and higher education sectors, this study reveals significant gaps between technological possibilities and organizational realities. Findings show highly limited AI adoption (only one authority reported using AI tools), widespread absence of formal redaction policies (50 percent reported "information not held"), and deficiencies in staff training. The study identifies three key barriers to effective AI implementation: poor record-keeping practices, lack of standardized redaction guidelines, and insufficient specialized training for human oversight. These findings highlight the need for a socio-technical approach that balances technological automation with meaningful human expertise. This research provides the first empirical assessment of AI redaction practices in UK public authorities and contributes evidence to support policymakers navigating the complex interplay between transparency obligations, data protection requirements, and emerging AI technologies in public administration.

The integration of AI for Requirements Engineering (RE) presents significant benefits but also poses real challenges. Although RE is fundamental to software engineering, limited research has examined AI adoption in RE. We surveyed 55 software practitioners to map AI usage across four RE phases: Elicitation, Analysis, Specification, and Validation, and four approaches for decision making: human-only decisions, AI validation, Human AI Collaboration (HAIC), and full AI automation. Participants also shared their perceptions, challenges, and opportunities when applying AI for RE tasks. Our data show that 58.2% of respondents already use AI in RE, and 69.1% view its impact as positive or very positive. HAIC dominates practice, accounting for 54.4% of all RE techniques, while full AI automation remains minimal at 5.4%. Passive AI validation (4.4 to 6.2%) lags even further behind, indicating that practitioners value AI's active support over passive oversight. These findings suggest that AI is most effective when positioned as a collaborative partner rather than a replacement for human expertise. It also highlights the need for RE-specific HAIC frameworks along with robust and responsible AI governance as AI adoption in RE grows.

Oversight and control, which we collectively call supervision, are often discussed as ways to ensure that AI systems are accountable, reliable, and able to fulfill governance and management requirements. However, the requirements for "human oversight" risk codifying vague or inconsistent interpretations of key concepts like oversight and control. This ambiguous terminology could undermine efforts to design or evaluate systems that must operate under meaningful human supervision. This matters because the term is used by regulatory texts such as the EU AI Act. This paper undertakes a targeted critical review of literature on supervision outside of AI, along with a brief summary of past work on the topic related to AI. We next differentiate control as ex-ante or real-time and operational rather than policy or governance, and oversight as performed ex-post, or a policy and governance function. Control aims to prevent failures, while oversight focuses on detection, remediation, or incentives for future prevention. Building on this, we make three contributions. 1) We propose a framework to align regulatory expectations with what is technically and organizationally plausible, articulating the conditions under which each mechanism is possible, where they fall short, and what is required to make them meaningful in practice. 2) We outline how supervision methods should be documented and integrated into risk management, and drawing on the Microsoft Responsible AI Maturity Model, we outline a maturity model for AI supervision. 3) We explicitly highlight boundaries of these mechanisms, including where they apply, where they fail, and where it is clear that no existing methods suffice. This foregrounds the question of whether meaningful supervision is possible in a given deployment context, and can support regulators, auditors, and practitioners in identifying both present and future limitations.

Big Language Models (LLMs) are changing the way businesses use software, the way people live their lives and the way industries work. Companies like Google, High-Flyer, Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta are making better LLMs. So, it's crucial to look at how each model is different in terms of performance, moral behaviour and usability, as these differences are based on the different ideas that built them. This study compares five top LLMs: Google's Gemini, High-Flyer's DeepSeek, Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's GPT models and Meta's LLaMA. It performs this by analysing three important factors: Performance and Accuracy, Ethics and Bias Mitigation and Usability and Integration. It was found that Claude has good moral reasoning, Gemini is better at multimodal capabilities and has strong ethical frameworks. DeepSeek is great at reasoning based on facts, LLaMA is good for open applications and ChatGPT delivers balanced performance with a focus on usage. It was concluded that these models are different in terms of how well they work, how easy they are to use and how they treat people ethically, making it a point that each model should be utilised by the user in a way that makes the most of its strengths.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through \textbf{BadScientist}, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify \textit{concern-acceptance conflict} -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

As autonomous agentic AI systems see increasing adoption across organisations, persistent challenges in alignment, governance, and risk management threaten to impede deployment at scale. We present AURA (Agent aUtonomy Risk Assessment), a unified framework designed to detect, quantify, and mitigate risks arising from agentic AI. Building on recent research and practical deployments, AURA introduces a gamma-based risk scoring methodology that balances risk assessment accuracy with computational efficiency and practical considerations. AURA provides an interactive process to score, evaluate and mitigate the risks of running one or multiple AI Agents, synchronously or asynchronously (autonomously). The framework is engineered for Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) oversight and presents Agent-to-Human (A2H) communication mechanisms, allowing for seamless integration with agentic systems for autonomous self-assessment, rendering it interoperable with established protocols (MCP and A2A) and tools. AURA supports a responsible and transparent adoption of agentic AI and provides robust risk detection and mitigation while balancing computational resources, positioning it as a critical enabler for large-scale, governable agentic AI in enterprise environments.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies continue to advance, protecting human autonomy and promoting ethical decision-making are essential to fostering trust and accountability. Human agency (the capacity of individuals to make informed decisions) should be actively preserved and reinforced by AI systems. This paper examines strategies for designing AI systems that uphold fundamental rights, strengthen human agency, and embed effective human oversight mechanisms. It discusses key oversight models, including Human-in-Command (HIC), Human-in-the-Loop (HITL), and Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL), and proposes a risk-based framework to guide the implementation of these mechanisms. By linking the level of AI model risk to the appropriate form of human oversight, the paper underscores the critical role of human involvement in the responsible deployment of AI, balancing technological innovation with the protection of individual values and rights. In doing so, it aims to ensure that AI technologies are used responsibly, safeguarding individual autonomy while maximizing societal benefits.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed as agents introduce significant safety risks in clinical settings due to their potential for error and single points of failure. We introduce Tiered Agentic Oversight (TAO), a hierarchical multi-agent system that enhances AI safety through layered, automated supervision. Inspired by clinical hierarchies (e.g., nurse-physician-specialist) in hospital, TAO routes tasks to specialized agents based on complexity, creating a robust safety framework through automated inter- and intra-tier communication and role-playing. Crucially, this hierarchical structure functions as an effective error-correction mechanism, absorbing up to 24% of individual agent errors before they can compound. Our experiments reveal TAO outperforms single-agent and other multi-agent systems on 4 out of 5 healthcare safety benchmarks, with up to an 8.2% improvement. Ablation studies confirm key design principles of the system: (i) its adaptive architecture is over 3% safer than static, single-tier configurations, and (ii) its lower tiers are indispensable, as their removal causes the most significant degradation in overall safety. Finally, we validated the system's synergy with human doctors in a user study where a physician, acting as the highest tier agent, provided corrective feedback that improved medical triage accuracy from 40% to 60%. Project Page: https://tiered-agentic-oversight.github.io/

When Agentic AI started dominating research papers, demos, and conference talks, I was curious but cautious. The idea of intelligent agents, autonomous systems powered by large language models that can plan, reason, and take actions using tools, sounded brilliant in theory. But I wanted to know what happened when you used them. Not in a toy notebook or a slick demo, but in real projects, with real constraints, where things needed to work reliably and repeatably. In my role as Clinical AI & Data Scientist at Bayezian Limited, I work at the intersection of data science, statistical modelling, and clinical AI governance, with a strong emphasis on regulatory-aligned standards such as CDISC. I have been directly involved in deploying agentic systems into environments where trust and reproducibility are not optional. These include real-time protocol compliance, CDISC mapping, and regulatory workflows. We gave agents real jobs. We let them loose on messy documents. And then we watched them work, fail, learn, and (sometimes) recover. This article is not a critique of Agentic AI as a concept.