From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.11910v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:19:47 GMT
• Title: From Protocols to Evidence: Bounded Claims for AI in Service of the Common Good
• Abstract summary: Claims that Artificial Intelligence systems improve decisions can exceed what their evaluation establishes.<n>We develop a rupture test that evaluates deployment against explicit human and non-AI baselines.<n>We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance.
• Score: 30.6027944662133
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Claims that Artificial Intelligence systems improve decisions, broaden access, reduce harm, or empower users can exceed what their evaluation establishes. Predictive performance alone does not establish safety, the presence of oversight does not establish meaningful control, and faster task completion does not establish understanding or choice. Evaluation must account for unreliable outputs and uneven performance, but also for overreliance, weakened recourse, and displaced human expertise. The harder questions are what the evidence warrants, which relations of power remain unexamined, and where measurement must stop. Assessing improvement requires examining what institutions value and the conditions AI is asked to address. AI is both revelation and intervention. Its use can reveal unmet human needs and assumptions about what matters. Once deployed, it can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal existing failures. We develop a rupture test that evaluates deployment against explicit human and non-AI baselines. Drawing on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, we examine dignity and the common good alongside questions of who owns AI infrastructure and who controls its use. These commitments shape judgments about improvement; evidence alone cannot establish moral or political legitimacy. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. RISE AI provides an evidence architecture for making bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. It records what is claimed, who answers for it, what evidence supports it, and what would require the claim to be qualified, revised, or withdrawn.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• When AI Does the Work, What Is Learning For? Post-Instrumental Learning and the Risk of Capacity Dissolution [3.2940515388832963]
  Existing AI ethics rightly emphasizes present failures.<n>But if the case for learning rests only on those failures, then each technical improvement appears to weaken it.<n>Using the idealization of AI that executes specified tasks flawlessly while lacking authority over purposes, legitimacy, and responsibility, we argue for post-instrumental learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T11:24:56Z)
• Why Public Service AI Governance Frameworks Risk Failing in the Age of General-Purpose AI: Lessons from Policing [0.0]
  We argue that general-purpose AI (GPAI) models undermine the conditions under which AI safety has historically been pursued.<n>The safety concepts that public service governance frameworks foreground - accuracy, bias, explainability, and accountability - were made tractable by narrow, purpose-built AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T12:34:04Z)
• What Does the Credential Still Certify? Cognitive Stewardship for AI-Mediated Education [3.2940515388832963]
  This paper develops a framework for AI-mediated assessment that links the learning claim, delegation boundary, evidence standard, and safeguards.<n>We then audit verified public generative AI assessment guidance from 30 universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T10:21:16Z)
• The AI Resilience Gap: Bringing Artificial Intelligence Inside the Operational Resilience Perimeter [0.0]
  We argue that AI adoption creates a resilience obligation distinct from, and inadequately covered by, the trustworthy AI stack.<n>We propose the AI Resilience Framework: a regime-agnostic method for bringing AI dependencies inside the operational resilience perimeter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T12:54:11Z)
• The AI Evaluability Gap: The Missing Layer for Managing Risk and Sustaining Value [1.6328866317851185]
  We argue that organizations lack sufficient evidence to support high-confidence governance decisions regarding either risk or value.<n>Existing governance approaches focus primarily on properties of systems, such as safety, fairness, reliability, compliance, and value.<n>We introduce Evaluability, defined as the capability of a system to generate, maintain, and renew evidence sufficient to support high-confidence governance decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T00:58:01Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Frontier AI Auditing: Toward Rigorous Third-Party Assessment of Safety and Security Practices at Leading AI Companies [57.521647436515785]
  We define frontier AI auditing as rigorous third-party verification of frontier AI developers' safety and security claims.<n>We introduce AI Assurance Levels (AAL-1 to AAL-4), ranging from time-bounded system audits to continuous, deception-resilient verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:44:09Z)
• Making LLMs Reliable When It Matters Most: A Five-Layer Architecture for High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Current large language models (LLMs) excel in verifiable domains where outputs can be checked before action but prove less reliable for high-stakes strategic decisions with uncertain outcomes.<n>This gap, driven by mutually cognitive biases in both humans and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, threatens the defensibility of valuations and sustainability of investments in the sector.<n>This report describes a framework emerging from systematic qualitative assessment across 7 frontier-grade LLMs and 3 market-facing venture vignettes under time pressure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T22:24:21Z)
• Benchmarking is Broken -- Don't Let AI be its Own Judge [22.93026946593552]
  We argue that the current laissez-faire approach to evaluating AI is unsustainable.<n>We introduce PeerBench, a community-governed, proctored evaluation blueprint.<n>Our goal is to pave the way for evaluations that can restore integrity and deliver genuinely trustworthy measures of AI progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T21:41:37Z)
• Never Compromise to Vulnerabilities: A Comprehensive Survey on AI Governance [211.5823259429128]
  We propose a comprehensive framework integrating technical and societal dimensions, structured around three interconnected pillars: Intrinsic Security, Derivative Security, and Social Ethics.<n>We identify three core challenges: (1) the generalization gap, where defenses fail against evolving threats; (2) inadequate evaluation protocols that overlook real-world risks; and (3) fragmented regulations leading to inconsistent oversight.<n>Our framework offers actionable guidance for researchers, engineers, and policymakers to develop AI systems that are not only robust and secure but also ethically aligned and publicly trustworthy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T09:42:56Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• 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)

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.