Developing a Grounded View of AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.14013v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2025 00:39:52 GMT
• Title: Developing a Grounded View of AI
• Authors: Bifei Mao, Lanqing Hong,
• Abstract summary: The paper examines the behavior of artificial intelligence from engineering points of view to clarify its nature and limits.<n>The paper proposes a methodology to make a sense of discrimination possible and practical to identify the distinctions of the behavior of AI models with three types of decisions.
• Score: 26.688384331221343
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As a capability coming from computation, how does AI differ fundamentally from the capabilities delivered by rule-based software program? The paper examines the behavior of artificial intelligence (AI) from engineering points of view to clarify its nature and limits. The paper argues that the rationality underlying humanity's impulse to pursue, articulate, and adhere to rules deserves to be valued and preserved. Identifying where rule-based practical rationality ends is the beginning of making it aware until action. Although the rules of AI behaviors are still hidden or only weakly observable, the paper has proposed a methodology to make a sense of discrimination possible and practical to identify the distinctions of the behavior of AI models with three types of decisions. It is a prerequisite for human responsibilities with alternative possibilities, considering how and when to use AI. It would be a solid start for people to ensure AI system soundness for the well-being of humans, society, and the environment.

Related papers

• Towards a Theory of AI Personhood [1.6317061277457001]
  We outline necessary conditions for AI personhood, focusing on agency, theory-of-mind, and self-awareness.<n>If AI systems can be considered persons, then typical framings of AI alignment may be incomplete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T10:31:26Z)
• A theory of appropriateness with applications to generative artificial intelligence [56.23261221948216]
  We need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it.<n>This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-26T00:54:03Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We examine what is known about human wisdom and sketch a vision of its AI counterpart.<n>We argue that AI systems particularly struggle with metacognition.<n>We discuss how wise AI might be benchmarked, trained, and implemented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• A.I. go by many names: towards a sociotechnical definition of artificial intelligence [0.0]
  Defining artificial intelligence (AI) is a persistent challenge, often muddied by technical ambiguity and varying interpretations. This essay makes a case for a sociotechnical definition of AI, which is essential for researchers who require clarity in their work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T11:25:50Z)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• Rolling in the deep of cognitive and AI biases [1.556153237434314]
  We argue that there is urgent need to understand AI as a sociotechnical system, inseparable from the conditions in which it is designed, developed and deployed. We address this critical issue by following a radical new methodology under which human cognitive biases become core entities in our AI fairness overview. We introduce a new mapping, which justifies the humans to AI biases and we detect relevant fairness intensities and inter-dependencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T21:34:04Z)
• Intent-aligned AI systems deplete human agency: the need for agency foundations research in AI safety [2.3572498744567127]
  We argue that alignment to human intent is insufficient for safe AI systems. We argue that preservation of long-term agency of humans may be a more robust standard.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T17:14:01Z)
• Beyond Bias and Compliance: Towards Individual Agency and Plurality of Ethics in AI [0.0]
  We argue that the way data is labeled plays an essential role in the way AI behaves. We propose an alternative path that allows for the plurality of values and the freedom of individual expression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-23T16:33:40Z)
• Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap [56.611702960809644]
  We benchmark AI's ability to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks.<n>Next, we conducted 72,191 Turing-like tests with 1,916 human judges and 10 AI judges.<n>Imitation ability showed minimal correlation with conventional AI performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:16:52Z)
• Relational Artificial Intelligence [5.5586788751870175]
  Even though AI is traditionally associated with rational decision making, understanding and shaping the societal impact of AI in all its facets requires a relational perspective. A rational approach to AI, where computational algorithms drive decision making independent of human intervention, has shown to result in bias and exclusion. A relational approach, that focus on the relational nature of things, is needed to deal with the ethical, legal, societal, cultural, and environmental implications of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-04T15:29:57Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.