While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in agentic frameworks to assist individual users, there is a growing need for agents that can proactively manage complex, multi-party collaboration. Systematic evaluation methods for such proactive agents remain scarce, limiting progress in developing AI that can effectively support multiple people together. Negotiation offers a demanding testbed for this challenge, requiring socio-cognitive intelligence to navigate conflicting interests between multiple participants and multiple topics and build consensus. Here, we present ProMediate, the first framework for evaluating proactive AI mediator agents in complex, multi-topic, multi-party negotiations. ProMediate consists of two core components: (i) a simulation testbed based on realistic negotiation cases and theory-driven difficulty levels (ProMediate-Easy, ProMediate-Medium, and ProMediate-Hard), with a plug-and-play proactive AI mediator grounded in socio-cognitive mediation theories, capable of flexibly deciding when and how to intervene; and (ii) a socio-cognitive evaluation framework with a new suite of metrics to measure consensus changes, intervention latency, mediator effectiveness, and intelligence. Together, these components establish a systematic framework for assessing the socio-cognitive intelligence of proactive AI agents in multi-party settings. Our results show that a socially intelligent mediator agent outperforms a generic baseline, via faster, better-targeted interventions. In the ProMediate-Hard setting, our social mediator increases consensus change by 3.6 percentage points compared to the generic baseline (10.65\% vs 7.01\%) while being 77\% faster in response (15.98s vs. 3.71s). In conclusion, ProMediate provides a rigorous, theory-grounded testbed to advance the development of proactive, socially intelligent agents.

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.

This paper develops a critical theory of artificial intelligence, within a historical constellation where computational systems increasingly generate cultural content that destabilises traditional distinctions between human and machine production. Through this analysis, I introduce the concept of the algorithmic condition, a cultural moment when machine-generated work not only becomes indistinguishable from human creation but actively reshapes our understanding of ideas of authenticity. This transformation, I argue, moves beyond false consciousness towards what I call post-consciousness, where the boundaries between individual and synthetic consciousness become porous. Drawing on critical theory and extending recent work on computational ideology, I develop three key theoretical contributions, first, the concept of the Inversion to describe a new computational turn in algorithmic society; second, automimetric production as a framework for understanding emerging practices of automated value creation; and third, constellational analysis as a methodological approach for mapping the complex interplay of technical systems, cultural forms and political economic structures. Through these contributions, I argue that we need new critical methods capable of addressing both the technical specificity of AI systems and their role in restructuring forms of life under computational capitalism. The paper concludes by suggesting that critical reflexivity is needed to engage with the algorithmic condition without being subsumed by it and that it represents a growing challenge for contemporary critical theory.

A warrior is in a prison cell. His guard approaches and shows him the wooden sword that he will receive once he has earned his freedom. The warrior grabs it, uses his unlocked cell door to knock the guard down, and places the sword's tip on the guard's throat. He drives it in as one might hammer a post, a coarse and grisly death. Then, for some reason, swaying back and forth, the warrior yells down at the corpse, "Wood or steel, a point is still a point!"

Mediation is often treated as an extension of negotiation, without taking into account the unique role that norms and facts play in legal mediation. Additionally, current approaches for updating argument acceptability in response to changing variables frequently require the introduction of new arguments or the removal of existing ones, which can be inefficient and cumbersome in decision-making processes within legal disputes. In this paper, our contribution is two-fold. First, we introduce a QuAM (Quantitative Argumentation Mediate) framework, which integrates the parties' knowledge and the mediator's knowledge, including facts and legal norms, when determining the acceptability of a mediation goal. Second, we develop a new formalism to model the relationship between the acceptability of a goal argument and the values assigned to a variable associated with the argument. We use a real-world legal mediation as a running example to illustrate our approach.

Can large multimodal models have a human-like ability for emotional and social reasoning, and if so, how does it work? Recent research has discovered emergent theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs). LLMs can reason about people's mental states by solving various text-based ToM tasks that ask questions about the actors' ToM (e.g., human belief, desire, intention). However, human reasoning in the wild is often grounded in dynamic scenes across time. Thus, we consider videos a new medium for examining spatio-temporal ToM reasoning ability. Specifically, we ask explicit probing questions about videos with abundant social and emotional reasoning content. We develop a pipeline for multimodal LLM for ToM reasoning using video and text. We also enable explicit ToM reasoning by retrieving key frames for answering a ToM question, which reveals how multimodal LLMs reason about ToM.

Learning companion robots for young children are increasingly adopted in informal learning environments. Although parents play a pivotal role in their children's learning, very little is known about how parents prefer to incorporate robots into their children's learning activities. We developed prototype capabilities for a learning companion robot to deliver educational prompts and responses to parent-child pairs during reading sessions and conducted in-home user studies involving 10 families with children aged 3-5. Our data indicates that parents want to work with robots as collaborators to augment parental activities to foster children's learning, introducing the notion of parent-robot collaboration. Our findings offer an empirical understanding of the needs and challenges of parent-child interaction in informal learning scenarios and design opportunities for integrating a companion robot into these interactions. We offer insights into how robots might be designed to facilitate parent-robot collaboration, including parenting policies, collaboration patterns, and interaction paradigms.

Hush-hush meetings, often never made public. For centuries, the art of conflict mediation has relied on nuanced human skills: from elements as simple as how to make eye contact and listen carefully to detecting shifts in emotions and subtle signals from opponents. Now, a growing set of entrepreneurs and experts are pitching a dramatic new set of tools into the world of dispute resolution – relying increasingly on artificial intelligence (AI). "Groundbreaking technological advancements are revolutionising the frontier of peace and mediation," said Sama al-Hamdani, programme director of Hala System, a private company using AI and data analysis to gather unencrypted intelligence in conflict zones, among other war-related tasks. "We are witnessing an era where AI transforms mediators into powerhouses of efficiency and insight," al-Hamdani said.

In this paper, I examine questions surrounding AI neutrality through the prism of existing literature and scholarship about mediation and media pluralism. Such traditions, I argue, provide a valuable theoretical framework for how we should approach the (likely) impending era of AI mediation. In particular, I suggest examining further the notion of algorithmic pluralism. Contrasting this notion to the dominant idea of algorithmic transparency, I seek to describe what algorithmic pluralism may be, and present both its opportunities and challenges. Implemented thoughtfully and responsibly, I argue, Algorithmic or AI pluralism has the potential to sustain the diversity, multiplicity, and inclusiveness that are so vital to democracy.

Background: In the contemporary educational landscape, technology has the power to drive innovative pedagogical practices. Overcoming the resistance of teachers and students to adopting new methods and technologies is a challenge that needs to be addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of ChatGPT as a co-advisor in research projects and its influence on the implementation of Project-Based Learning (PBL), as well as overcoming resistance to the use of new pedagogical methodologies. Design: An action-research methodology was employed, including unstructured interviews and the application of questionnaires via Google Forms. Setting and Participants: The research was conducted in an elementary school, involving 353 students and 16 teachers. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were gathered through observations and notes in meetings and interviews, complemented by electronic questionnaires, with quantitative and qualitative analyses performed via Microsoft Excel and Google Forms. Results: The introduction of ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool led to increased student engagement and decreased teacher resistance, reflected in recognition at local science fairs. Conclusion: The study confirmed the utility of ChatGPT in school research co-orientation, highlighting its role in facilitating PBL and promoting cultural changes in educational practice, with proactive school management identified as a catalysing element in adapting to educational innovations.