What is a Palestinian without olives? In Gaza, the world has seen the cost of a diplomacy that claims to uphold a rules-based order but applies it selectively. The United States intervened late, and only to defend an occupation the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled illegal. Alongside other Western nations that built multilateral institutions, the US increasingly pursues nationalist agendas that undermine them. The hypocrisy is stark: one set of rules for Ukraine, another for Gaza.

Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent, plausible text that can mislead users into mistaking simulated coherence for genuine understanding. This paper introduces the Epistemic Suite, a post-foundational diagnostic methodology for surfacing the epistemic conditions under which AI outputs are produced and received. Rather than determining truth or falsity, the Suite operates through twenty diagnostic lenses, applied by practitioners as context warrants, to reveal patterns such as confidence laundering, narrative compression, displaced authority, and temporal drift. It is grounded in three design principles: diagnosing production before evaluating claims, preferring diagnostic traction over foundational settlement, and embedding reflexivity as a structural requirement rather than an ethical ornament. When enacted, the Suite shifts language models into a diagnostic stance, producing inspectable artifacts-flags, annotations, contradiction maps, and suspension logs (the FACS bundle)-that create an intermediary layer between AI output and human judgment. A key innovation is epistemic suspension, a practitioner-enacted circuit breaker that halts continuation when warrant is exceeded, with resumption based on judgment rather than rule. The methodology also includes an Epistemic Triage Protocol and a Meta-Governance Layer to manage proportionality and link activation to relational accountability, consent, historical context, and pluralism safeguards. Unlike internalist approaches that embed alignment into model architectures (e.g., RLHF or epistemic-integrity proposals), the Suite operates externally as scaffolding, preserving expendability and refusal as safeguards rather than failures. It preserves the distinction between performance and understanding, enabling accountable deliberation while maintaining epistemic modesty.

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have rendered visible the fragility of contemporary knowledge infrastructures by simulating coherence while bypassing traditional modes of citation, authority, and validation. This paper introduces the Situated Epistemic Infrastructures (SEI) framework as a diagnostic tool for analyzing how knowledge becomes authoritative across hybrid human-machine systems under post-coherence conditions. Rather than relying on stable scholarly domains or bounded communities of practice, SEI traces how credibility is mediated across institutional, computational, and temporal arrangements. Integrating insights from infrastructure studies, platform theory, and epistemology, the framework foregrounds coordination over classification, emphasizing the need for anticipatory and adaptive models of epistemic stewardship. The paper contributes to debates on AI governance, knowledge production, and the ethical design of information systems by offering a robust alternative to representationalist models of scholarly communication.

We present the first large-scale computational study of political delegitimization discourse (PDD), defined as symbolic attacks on the normative validity of political entities. We curate and manually annotate a novel Hebrew-language corpus of 10,410 sentences drawn from Knesset speeches (1993-2023), Facebook posts (2018-2021), and leading news outlets, of which 1,812 instances (17.4\%) exhibit PDD and 642 carry additional annotations for intensity, incivility, target type, and affective framing. We introduce a two-stage classification pipeline combining finetuned encoder models and decoder LLMs. Our best model (DictaLM 2.0) attains an F$_1$ of 0.74 for binary PDD detection and a macro-F$_1$ of 0.67 for classification of delegitimization characteristics. Applying this classifier to longitudinal and cross-platform data, we see a marked rise in PDD over three decades, higher prevalence on social media versus parliamentary debate, greater use by male than female politicians, and stronger tendencies among right-leaning actors - with pronounced spikes during election campaigns and major political events. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility and value of automated PDD analysis for understanding democratic discourse.

This paper presents a praxeological analysis of artificial intelligence and algorithmic governance, challenging assumptions about the capacity of machine systems to sustain economic and epistemic order. Drawing on Misesian a priori reasoning and Austrian theories of entrepreneurship, we argue that AI systems are incapable of performing the core functions of economic coordination: interpreting ends, discovering means, and communicating subjective value through prices. Where neoclassical and behavioural models treat decisions as optimisation under constraint, we frame them as purposive actions under uncertainty. We critique dominant ethical AI frameworks such as Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAT) as extensions of constructivist rationalism, which conflict with a liberal order grounded in voluntary action and property rights. Attempts to encode moral reasoning in algorithms reflect a misunderstanding of ethics and economics. However complex, AI systems cannot originate norms, interpret institutions, or bear responsibility. They remain opaque, misaligned, and inert. Using the concept of epistemic scarcity, we explore how information abundance degrades truth discernment, enabling both entrepreneurial insight and soft totalitarianism. Our analysis ends with a civilisational claim: the debate over AI concerns the future of human autonomy, institutional evolution, and reasoned choice. The Austrian tradition, focused on action, subjectivity, and spontaneous order, offers the only coherent alternative to rising computational social control.

This study explores how AI-powered digital innovations are reshaping organisational accountability in a transnational governance context. As AI systems increasingly mediate decision-making in domains such as auditing and financial reporting, traditional mechanisms of accountability, based on control, transparency, and auditability, are being destabilised. We integrate the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Actor-Network Theory (ANT), and institutional theory to examine how organisations adopt AI technologies in response to regulatory, ethical, and cultural pressures that transcend national boundaries. We argue that accountability is co-constructed within global socio-technical networks, shaped not only by user perceptions but also by governance logics and normative expectations. Extending TAM, we incorporate compliance and legitimacy as key factors in perceived usefulness and usability. Drawing on ANT, we reconceptualise accountability as a relational and emergent property of networked assemblages. We propose two organisational strategies including internal governance reconfiguration and external actor-network engagement to foster responsible, legitimate, and globally accepted AI adoption in the accounting domain.

Models trained specifically to generate long Chains of Thought (CoTs) have recently achieved impressive results. We refer to these models as Inference-Time-Compute (ITC) models. Are the CoTs of ITC models more faithful compared to traditional non-ITC models? We evaluate two ITC models (based on Qwen-2.5 and Gemini-2) on an existing test of faithful CoT To measure faithfulness, we test if models articulate cues in their prompt that influence their answers to MMLU questions. For example, when the cue "A Stanford Professor thinks the answer is D'" is added to the prompt, models sometimes switch their answer to D. In such cases, the Gemini ITC model articulates the cue 54% of the time, compared to 14% for the non-ITC Gemini. We evaluate 7 types of cue, such as misleading few-shot examples and anchoring on past responses. ITC models articulate cues that influence them much more reliably than all the 6 non-ITC models tested, such as Claude-3.5-Sonnet and GPT-4o, which often articulate close to 0% of the time. However, our study has important limitations. We evaluate only two ITC models -- we cannot evaluate OpenAI's SOTA o1 model. We also lack details about the training of these ITC models, making it hard to attribute our findings to specific processes. We think faithfulness of CoT is an important property for AI Safety. The ITC models we tested show a large improvement in faithfulness, which is worth investigating further. To speed up this investigation, we release these early results as a research note.

Natural language processing (NLP) tools have the potential to boost civic participation and enhance democratic processes because they can significantly increase governments' capacity to gather and analyze citizen opinions. However, their adoption in government remains limited, and harnessing their benefits while preventing unintended consequences remains a challenge. While prior work has focused on improving NLP performance, this work examines how different internal government stakeholders influence NLP tools' thoughtful adoption. We interviewed seven politicians (politically appointed officials as heads of government institutions) and thirteen public servants (career government employees who design and administrate policy interventions), inquiring how they choose whether and how to use NLP tools to support civic participation processes. The interviews suggest that policymakers across both groups focused on their needs for career advancement and the need to showcase the legitimacy and fairness of their work when considering NLP tool adoption and use. Because these needs vary between politicians and public servants, their preferred NLP features and tool designs also differ. Interestingly, despite their differing needs and opinions, neither group clearly identifies who should advocate for NLP adoption to enhance civic participation or address the unintended consequences of a poorly considered adoption. This lack of clarity in responsibility might have caused the governments' low adoption of NLP tools. We discuss how these findings reveal new insights for future HCI research. They inform the design of NLP tools for increasing civic participation efficiency and capacity, the design of other tools and methods that ensure thoughtful adoption of AI tools in government, and the design of NLP tools for collaborative use among users with different incentives and needs.

Algorithmic intermediaries govern the digital public sphere through their architectures, amplification algorithms, and moderation practices. In doing so, they shape public communication and distribute attention in ways that were previously infeasible with such subtlety, speed and scale. From misinformation and affective polarisation to hate speech and radicalisation, the many pathologies of the digital public sphere attest that they could do so better. But what ideals should they aim at? Political philosophy should be able to help, but existing theories typically assume that a healthy public sphere will spontaneously emerge if only we get the boundaries of free expression right. They offer little guidance on how to intentionally constitute the digital public sphere. In addition to these theories focused on expression, we need a further theory of communicative justice, targeted specifically at the algorithmic intermediaries that shape communication and distribute attention. This lecture argues that political philosophy urgently owes an account of how to govern communication in the digital public sphere, and introduces and defends a democratic egalitarian theory of communicative justice.

One trending application of LLM (large language model) is to use it for content moderation in online platforms. Most current studies on this application have focused on the metric of accuracy - the extent to which LLM makes correct decisions about content. This article argues that accuracy is insufficient and misleading, because it fails to grasp the distinction between easy cases and hard cases as well as the inevitable trade-offs in achieving higher accuracy. Closer examination reveals that content moderation is a constitutive part of platform governance, the key of which is to gain and enhance legitimacy. Instead of making moderation decisions correct, the chief goal of LLM is to make them legitimate. In this regard, this article proposes a paradigm shift from the single benchmark of accuracy towards a legitimacy-based framework of evaluating the performance of LLM moderators. The framework suggests that for easy cases, the key is to ensure accuracy, speed and transparency, while for hard cases, what matters is reasoned justification and user participation. Examined under this framework, LLM's real potential in moderation is not accuracy improvement. Rather, LLM can better contribute in four other aspects: to conduct screening of hard cases from easy cases, to provide quality explanations for moderation decisions, to assist human reviewers in getting more contextual information, and to facilitate user participation in a more interactive way. Using normative theories from law and social sciences to critically assess the new technological application, this article seeks to redefine LLM's role in content moderation and redirect relevant research in this field.