How does live facial recognition work and how many police forces use it? Britain's biometrics watchdogs have warned that national oversight of AI-powered face scanning to catch criminals is lagging far behind the technology's rapid growth. With the Metropolitan police almost doubling the number of faces they scan in London over the past 12 months and a rising use of the technology by retailers in the UK, Prof William Webster, the biometrics commissioner for England and Wales, said the "slow pace of legislation was trying to catch up with the real world" and "the horse had gone before the cart". Dr Brian Plastow, who holds the same role in Scotland, warned the technology was "nowhere near as effective as the police claim it is" and said there was a "patchwork legal framework" throughout the UK. He said in England and Wales, police were "really just marking their own homework".

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.

This happened as generative and agentic systems became essential in key sectors worldwide. This feature highlights the major AI ethics and policy developments of 2025, and concludes with a forward-looking perspective on the ethical and policy challenges likely to shape 2026.

What is the Insurrection Act? Why is the US Fed chair criminal probe causing alarm? The United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee has overwhelmingly voted to advance a bill that would give Congress more power over artificial intelligence chip exports despite pushback from White House AI tsar David Sacks and a social media campaign against the legislation. Representative Brian Mast of Florida, a Republican and the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced the "AI Overwatch Act" in December after US President Donald Trump greenlit shipments of Nvidia's powerful H200 AI chips to China. The bill claims that those "countries of concern" also include countries beyond China, such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

DOGE dominated the news this year as Elon Musk's operatives shook up several US government agencies. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the brainchild of billionaire Elon Musk, has gone through several iterations, leading periodically to claims-- most recently from the director of the Office of Personnel Management--that the group doesn't exist, or has vanished altogether. Many of its original members are in full-time roles at various government agencies, and the new National Design Studio (NDS) is headed by Airbnb cofounder Joe Gebbia, a close ally of Musk's. Even if DOGE doesn't survive another year, or until the US semiquincentennial--its original expiration date, per the executive order establishing it--the organization's larger project will continue. DOGE from its inception was used for two things, both of which have continued apace: the destruction of the administrative state and the wholesale consolidation of data in service of concentrating power in the executive branch.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are now an integral part of multiple industries. In clinical research, AI supports automated adverse event detection in clinical trials, patient eligibility screening for protocol enrollment, and data quality validation. Beyond healthcare, AI is transforming finance through real-time fraud detection, automated loan risk assessment, and algorithmic decision-making. Similarly, in manufacturing, AI enables predictive maintenance to reduce equipment downtime, enhances quality control through computer-vision inspection, and optimizes production workflows using real-time operational data. While these technologies enhance operational efficiency, they introduce new challenges regarding safety, accountability, and regulatory compliance. To address these concerns, we introduce the SMART+ Framework - a structured model built on the pillars of Safety, Monitoring, Accountability, Reliability, and Transparency, and further enhanced with Privacy & Security, Data Governance, Fairness & Bias, and Guardrails. SMART+ offers a practical, comprehensive approach to evaluating and governing AI systems across industries. This framework aligns with evolving mechanisms and regulatory guidance to integrate operational safeguards, oversight procedures, and strengthened privacy and governance controls. SMART+ demonstrates risk mitigation, trust-building, and compliance readiness. By enabling responsible AI adoption and ensuring auditability, SMART+ provides a robust foundation for effective AI governance in clinical research.

The rapid deployment of large language model (LLM)-based agents introduces a new class of risks, driven by their capacity for autonomous planning, multi-step tool integration, and emergent interactions. It raises some risk factors for existing governance approaches as they remain fragmented: Existing frameworks are either static taxonomies driven; however, they lack an integrated end-to-end pipeline from risk identification to operational assurance, especially for an agentic platform. We propose AGENTSAFE, a practical governance framework for LLM-based agentic systems. The framework operationalises the AI Risk Repository into design, runtime, and audit controls, offering a governance framework for risk identification and assurance. The proposed framework, AGENTSAFE, profiles agentic loops (plan -> act -> observe -> reflect) and toolchains, and maps risks onto structured taxonomies extended with agent-specific vulnerabilities. It introduces safeguards that constrain risky behaviours, escalates high-impact actions to human oversight, and evaluates systems through pre-deployment scenario banks spanning security, privacy, fairness, and systemic safety. During deployment, AGENTSAFE ensures continuous governance through semantic telemetry, dynamic authorization, anomaly detection, and interruptibility mechanisms. Provenance and accountability are reinforced through cryptographic tracing and organizational controls, enabling measurable, auditable assurance across the lifecycle of agentic AI systems. The key contributions of this paper are: (1) a unified governance framework that translates risk taxonomies into actionable design, runtime, and audit controls; (2) an Agent Safety Evaluation methodology that provides measurable pre-deployment assurance; and (3) a set of runtime governance and accountability mechanisms that institutionalise trust in agentic AI ecosystems.

As intelligence increases, so does its shadow. AI deception, in which systems induce false beliefs to secure self-beneficial outcomes, has evolved from a speculative concern to an empirically demonstrated risk across language models, AI agents, and emerging frontier systems. This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field, covering its core concepts, methodologies, genesis, and potential mitigations. First, we identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception. We then review existing empirical studies and associated risks, highlighting deception as a sociotechnical safety challenge. We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment. Deception emergence reveals the mechanisms underlying AI deception: systems with sufficient capability and incentive potential inevitably engage in deceptive behaviors when triggered by external conditions. Deception treatment, in turn, focuses on detecting and addressing such behaviors. On deception emergence, we analyze incentive foundations across three hierarchical levels and identify three essential capability preconditions required for deception. We further examine contextual triggers, including supervision gaps, distributional shifts, and environmental pressures. On deception treatment, we conclude detection methods covering benchmarks and evaluation protocols in static and interactive settings. Building on the three core factors of deception emergence, we outline potential mitigation strategies and propose auditing approaches that integrate technical, community, and governance efforts to address sociotechnical challenges and future AI risks. To support ongoing work in this area, we release a living resource at www.deceptionsurvey.com.

This paper examines why safety mechanisms designed for human-model interaction do not scale to environments where large language models (LLMs) interact with each other. Most current governance practices still rely on single-agent safety containment, prompts, fine-tuning, and moderation layers that constrain individual model behavior but leave the dynamics of multi-model interaction ungoverned. These mechanisms assume a dyadic setting: one model responding to one user under stable oversight. Yet research and industrial development are rapidly shifting toward LLM-to-LLM ecosystems, where outputs are recursively reused as inputs across chains of agents. In such systems, local compliance can aggregate into collective failure even when every model is individually aligned. We propose a conceptual transition from model-level safety to system-level safety, introducing the framework of the Emergent Systemic Risk Horizon (ESRH) to formalize how instability arises from interaction structure rather than from isolated misbehavior. The paper contributes (i) a theoretical account of collective risk in interacting LLMs, (ii) a taxonomy connecting micro, meso, and macro-level failure modes, and (iii) a design proposal for InstitutionalAI, an architecture for embedding adaptive oversight within multi-agent systems.

As AI systems evolve from static tools to dynamic agents, traditional categorical governance frameworks -- based on fixed risk tiers, levels of autonomy, or human oversight models -- are increasingly insufficient on their own. Systems built on foundation models, self-supervised learning, and multi-agent architectures increasingly blur the boundaries that categories were designed to police. In this Perspective, we make the case for dimensional governance: a framework that tracks how decision authority, process autonomy, and accountability (the 3As) distribute dynamically across human-AI relationships. A critical advantage of this approach is its ability to explicitly monitor system movement toward and across key governance thresholds, enabling preemptive adjustments before risks materialize. This dimensional approach provides the necessary foundation for more adaptive categorization, enabling thresholds and classifications that can evolve with emerging capabilities. While categories remain essential for decision-making, building them upon dimensional foundations allows for context-specific adaptability and stakeholder-responsive governance that static approaches cannot achieve. We outline key dimensions, critical trust thresholds, and practical examples illustrating where rigid categorical frameworks fail -- and where a dimensional mindset could offer a more resilient and future-proof path forward for both governance and innovation at the frontier of artificial intelligence.