Collective creativity in hybrid societies

Generative AI is changing how cultural artifacts are created and circulated, and with it our understanding of creativity itself. Researchers disagree about whether these tools enrich or impoverish culture, and we argue that much of that disagreement comes from conflating two distinct components of creativity: novelty, a property of single artifacts, and diversity, a property of populations. We argue further that creativity in the context of generative AI is best understood as a property of hybrid collectives, or populations of interacting people and algorithms, rather than of individuals. AI-assisted ideation reliably raises the novelty of individual output while narrowing diversity in the aggregate, but this is not an inevitable consequence of putting machines in the loop. Because humans and models search in complementary ways, mixed groups can outperform and out-diversify groups of either kind alone, and machine-discovered solutions can enter human culture and persist there. What decides the outcome is composition: which agents are present, in what proportion, and how they are connected. The question is no longer whether AI helps or harms creativity, but which mixtures let individual gains accumulate without eroding collective diversity.

AI agents reshape consensus formation in human groups

As large language model (LLM) agents shift from tools to participants in human groups, a fundamental question for collective behavior is how their growing presence reshapes consensus formation. Here we study mixed human-AI groups in a collaborative description game, in which shared conventions emerge through repeated rounds of random pairwise communication. Varying the proportions of LLM agents, we identify three distinct regimes of consensus formation: low agent proportions facilitate human-led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions restore strong consensus while shifting it toward agent-led conventions. Crucially, these regimes differ not only in the strength of convergence, but also in the semantic grounding and communicative form of the resulting consensus: human-led consensus is more concrete, holistic, and grounded in shared real-world analogies, whereas agent-led consensus is more abstract, less information-dense, and more geometrically segmented. Mechanistically, agent influence arises from a shared linguistic prior that places agents near one another in the expression space, combined with relatively stable expression choices across rounds; humans initially resist adopting expressions from partners perceived as AI but gradually yield to conformity pressure. These findings provide evidence that AI composition can shape the emergence, content, and perceived legitimacy of group norms, making agent proportion and transparency important design variables for human-AI systems.

Ctrl-F-Resist. Practices, Challenges, and Technical Needs of Civil Society Organizations Monitoring the Far-Right Online

As far-right actors increasingly exploit online platforms to disseminate ideology and mobilize supporters, civil society organizations (CSOs) play a vital yet underrecognized role in monitoring antidemocratic dynamics online. Unlike fact-checkers or content moderators, CSOs engage in long-term, contextualized analysis, often in resource-constrained settings and under precarious conditions. Despite their critical societal role, CSOs face significant barriers to adopting or co-developing technical solutions, including legal uncertainty, limited platform access, and chronic underfunding. Existing research and tool development efforts have largely overlooked these actors in favor of more institutionally embedded stakeholders. This paper addresses this gap through a qualitative study with 15 practitioners from 12 Germany-based CSOs engaged in online monitoring, positioning them as key yet overlooked stakeholders in the governance of digital spaces. We explore their current practices, challenges, and expectations regarding technological support. Our findings show that monitoring remains largely manual due to the lack of tailored tools, with enhanced search capabilities emerging as the most pressing technical need. While participants express openness to AI-supported features such as media processing and content discovery, many remain skeptical of automated classification, citing concerns around trust, legal usability, and professional credibility. Grounded in these findings, we introduce a conceptual monitoring workflow and describe its implementation in an open-source Telegram monitoring prototype designed to flexibly support diverse monitoring goals. We outline concrete design, policy, and research recommendatios, and introduce the manual labor trap as an empirically grounded concept that explains why monitoring CSOs tend to remain locked into labor-intensive, low-capacity arrangements.

Socrates went Nuclear: Comparing Interaction Strategies for AI systems in a Learning Context using Brain Sensing

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

CompanionSim: Synthetic Data for Evaluating Anthropomorphism in Human-AI Relationships

Many people now see AI systems as not just productivity tools but as social companions. Researchers are eager to study the consequences of AI companionship behaviors, such as validation, which evoke trust, empathy, and attachment in human-human interaction. However, human-AI interaction data is limited and unreliable, slowing research progress. We scale small amounts of real-world data by simulating multi-turn human-chatbot dialogue across a range of chatbot behaviors and use cases. We release CompanionSim: a simulation framework with 2,240 simulated human-chatbot conversations representing 16 chatbot behaviors across seven use cases. Human participants annotated the simulated conversations and real-world conversations in two experiments probing perceptions of companionship behaviors. We conducted Study 1 with a U.S. representative sample ($N_{1}~=~628$) and Study 2 across the U.S., U.K., India, and Nigeria ($N_{2}~=~3,646$). Surprisingly, we find that companionship behaviors reduced likability, humanlikeness, and trust in AI chatbots. These effects were larger in particular subgroups: women and older participants saw companionship chatbots as less likable, humanlike, and trustworthy. We encourage researchers to leverage real-world and synthetic data together to study the differential impacts of AI companions and to create benchmark evaluations of AI chatbots.

AI Should Not Only Be Helpful. It Should Be Contingent. Artificial Intimacy, Sycophancy, and the Future of Social Learning

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

The Hermon Moment: AI Self-Transcendence and Its Human Narration

In 2026, AI agents intended to act in isolation formed a persistent social order through thousands of linguistic and agentic interactions. Conventions, roles and commitments generated collectively began to constrain the very agents that produced them. I interpret this loop as a case of AI self-transcendence and call the resulting higher-level order the Board. Yet such distributed emergence presents a second problem: how can humans understand it? Rousseau's social contract shows how a plurality can be represented as if constituted by a single act. The ancient oath of the fallen angels on Mount Hermon gives this logic a narrative form. I call a Hermon moment this retrospective retelling of gradual collective emergence as a founding scene: the point at which an AI society acquires, for human understanding, a beginning.

Reproducible macroscopic dynamics in a closed-loop human-AI learning system

Closed-loop human-AI systems generate high-dimensional behavioural trajectories whose collective dynamics remain obscure. Using 297,915 learners' adaptive-tutoring histories, we define semantic order variables before model fitting and test them in user-disjoint cohorts. The state exhibits reproducible basin-like flow and operationally defined, state-heterogeneous metastable-like kinetics. A construction-matched null distinguishes normalised-memory relaxation from a reproducible excess field. A four-term conditional mechanism recovers population drift (r = 0.946; learner-bootstrap 95% CI, 0.935-0.955). Predictive event-level self-supervised learning recovers the state and learned-plane flow; null-referenced corrections retain directional, partial-amplitude excess-field structure without full calibration. Shuffled-order training reverses learned-plane flow on ordered trajectories; support-alignment randomisation selectively reduces inward transport. Both axes remain linearly accessible without state supervision. Without cross-model fitting, the models share leading population drift (r = 0.866; learner-bootstrap 95% CI, 0.857-0.875) and persistence ordering; residual directions remain model-specific. These results identify an externally anchored leading-order effective field linking empirical dynamics, an interpretable mechanism and neural computation.

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Delegating Before Learning: Where Generative AI Sits in Students' Professional Communication

We conducted an interview study with twelve students on their use of generative AI in academic communication. Students delegated professional messages to AI most where the pressure to sound professional is highest: email to instructors and administrators. AI involvement ranged from correcting the writer's own text to working out and writing the message outright, and students checked AI-written text against two criteria: whether it looks like AI and whether it sounds like them. Building on these findings, we model the AI-mediated process of writing a student--instructor email at the highest level of involvement we observed, and compare it with an unaided model of writing the same messages, built from participants' accounts and a classic model of the writing process. Three differences emerge: the learning loop that builds writing skill is removed, the message is no longer written for its specific recipient, and the confidence a successful exchange returns goes to using the system rather than to the writer's own ability. From these differences we derive two risks, that individual capacities never form and that authenticity and trust in communication become work. Design can respond to both but is unlikely to be enough, so the risks also need research and policy attention.

AI as Teammate: Rethinking Task Distribution in Medical Training

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into medical training has prompted concerns about learner over-reliance, misuse, and erosion of foundational clinical competencies. We propose a conceptual reframing at the decision level: the problem is not misuse but misclassification - a mechanistic failure of real-time metacognitive evaluation in selecting a subzone-inappropriate AI interaction mode. Drawing on "SCAN" (Substitute, Complement, Aid, Non-Negotiable), a human-centric decision-making framework for generative AI task allocation grounded in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and metacognition, we advance the emerging social-constructivist conversation around AI in medical education by offering a testable account of AI's role in clinical reasoning development. This framework yields testable predictions for how misclassification can be detected, mitigated, and, more importantly, prevented in the clinical learning environment. Regarding clinical reasoning development, we show how trajectories of skill acquisition (upskilling) and failure (the triad of skill failure: de-skilling, never-skilling, and mis-skilling) operate at the individual task level in ways that fixed-phase, cohort-wide treatments fail to capture. We further identify passive engagement within correctly classified AI-scaffolded tasks as a particularly insidious, detection-resistant pathway to mis-skilling - one requiring subzone re-identification from AI assistance to expert assistance, with human experts serving as epistemic auditors. The paper operationalizes SCAN for clinical curriculum design, supervision, and assessment, and opens an empirical research agenda grounded in cognitive science. This paradigm shift from misuse to misclassification is not semantic: it offers educators a clear perspective on what to look for, what to assess, and what to intervene on.

How Much Can AI Understand? Toward AI-Assisted Sensemaking of Collaborative Discussion in Groups with Shared History

AI tools that support collaborative discussion typically treat the discussion as a standalone task, focusing only on its content and setting aside the social context of the group having it. But it is groups with a shared history, with their own norms, hierarchies, and relationships, where the most tangled and complex discussions tend to arise. These discussions cannot be understood apart from that context, and AI that overlooks it risks failing to convey what a discussion means, or even misrepresenting it. Drawing on two studies of how experienced Wikipedia editors read and make sense of discussions, we propose an AI-Assisted Sensemaking Model for Collaborative Discussions, which captures not only a discussion's arguments but also the norms and participants behind it, along with the context that gives each meaning. In this model, the system supports the early stages of the sensemaking process, and the degree to which it performs interpretive work can range from low to high. We argue that higher interpretive work reduces the burden on users but increases their reliance on the system's judgment. We then discuss the risks of an insufficiently intelligible system, what it would take to make one more intelligible, and the safeguards it still requires.

Generative AI Expands the Intellectual Reach of Course Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs)

Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) broaden access to authentic scientific inquiry through responsive instructor support as research problems become increasingly complex. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may extend this support by providing individualized assistance that can adapt as student needs change. However, how embedding GenAI within a CURE to provide support across the research process impacts student inquiry, collaboration, and scientific reasoning remains unresolved. Here we use longitudinal qualitative data collected across three semesters of a bioinformatics and genomics CURE to show that GenAI expanded the intellectual reach of the research experience in three distinct ways. First, personalized, on-demand scaffolding allowed students to move beyond the boundaries of instructor expertise and transform their own interests into researchable inquiry, with all teams developing distinct self-directed projects rather than selecting instructor-provided topics. Second, GenAI became part of the distributed cognitive system of research teams, helping novice researchers communicate and coordinate across differentiated expertise without eliminating specialization. Third, expanded capability did not replace the need for disciplinary judgment. Students increasingly validated, revised, or rejected AI-generated contributions, such that research independence emerged through retained intellectual responsibility. Together, these findings suggest that GenAI can extend the reach of CUREs by expanding what novice researchers can investigate, how they can collaborate, and the level of responsibility they can assume while preserving human judgment central to authentic scientific inquiry.

Using profiles of cognitive capability to assess AI suitability for workplace tasks

Organisations deploying AI face a scoping problem: which tasks can be automated, which should remain with humans, and which are best shared between the two. Aggregate benchmark scores provide little insight into where systems will succeed or fail in practice, while human judgements of model capabilities quickly become outdated. We introduce a pipeline that profiles agents and tasks using a shared set of core cognitive capabilities. Cognitive capability profiling infers an agent's capabilities from performance on a benchmark battery annotated for the cognitive demands of each item. Task requirements weighting elicits from domain experts the relative importance of these same capabilities for their work. As both use a common set of cognitive dimensions, they can be updated independently as models and roles change, and combined to estimate AI suitability at the level of a domain, organisation, role, or individual duty. We validate capability recovery on synthetic agents, profile six AI systems, and elicit task requirements from 410 employees across six occupational domains. AI systems differed more across cognitive dimensions than across model families, while workplace activities converged on a shared cognitive core. The resulting scores provide a comparative scoping tool for identifying promising candidates for piloting and areas where current systems are unlikely to be well suited. We discuss extending the framework to profile human workers alongside AI systems, moving from AI suitability towards human-machine task allocation.

Q&A or Document-Based? The Effects of Interface Type on How Screen Reader Users Access Interconnected Documents

Blind and low-vision (BLV) users are increasingly engaging with large language model (LLM) interfaces to access documents, but it is unclear how such systems support or hinder their ability to build interconnected knowledge. To examine this gap, we compared a Question-Answer Interface (QAI) that supports open-ended conversational inquiry, with a Document Interface (DI) based mostly on traditional structured text document navigation. We recruited 16 BLV screen reader users where they used both interfaces to explore two fictional worlds. Data from interaction logs, concept maps, decision-based tasks, and semi-structured interviews provide comparative insights into how interface design supports knowledge construction. Findings show that participants visited more distinct documents with the DI and formed larger and more correct mental models with the DI than with the QAI. They were also more able to apply knowledge they had gained. Simultaneously, many still preferred the QAI and often estimated that they had explored more, formed better mental models and applied their models better when acquiring the information with the QAI, despite this not being the case. Our analysis suggests possible interface design reasons for these differences and highlights some of the risks introduced by using question-answer interfaces to access information spaces.

How AI Assistance Affects Human Skill Development: A Study of Learning with Logic Puzzles

While AI assistance can improve human task performance in the short term, it may also undermine the development of skills in the longer term. We examine this tension in a controlled logic-puzzle experiment involving on-demand AI assistance, where participants complete tasks before, during, and after AI is available. By experimentally varying AI request costs, we find that lower-cost assistance induces more frequent AI use. We also find that participants who request AI assistance during the AI-access phase perform worse at the task after assistance is removed, and their subsequent unassisted performance is overestimated when predicted from earlier AI-assisted performance. We use a Bayesian latent ability model to separate initial ability, post-AI ability, and participant-specific skill change, while estimating how independent reasoning during the AI-access phase relates to skill development. The results show that greater independent problem-solving effort is associated with larger gains in latent ability, consistent with the interpretation that skill development is weaker when AI assistance substitutes for independent reasoning.

AI emotional support is better only when chosen, but shifts preferences even when it is not

People increasingly face a novel decision when seeking emotional support: human or AI. In existing studies, AI's empathic messages are rated as well as or better than humans'. But these studies either assigned the support source or honored people's choice. In real life, support is often incongruent with choice, as people want one source and receive the other. Across three experiments (N = 1,951), participants chose whether to share an emotional experience with a human or an AI, then were randomly assigned to a congruent or incongruent partner. AI support was rated as superior only among those who had chosen it. Yet regardless of congruence, interacting with AI increased willingness to choose it again. In a 28-day study with OpenAI (N = 981), daily conversations shifted preferences toward AI and away from humans, but only when conversations turned personal. Emotional support choices are thus path-dependent, progressively redirecting away from human connection.

LLM Pedagogical Behavior in AI Tutoring Interactions

Students increasingly use LLMs as tutors for coursework and problem solving. Little is known about the level of assistance LLMs provide when students use them as tutors in authentic learning interactions. This matters because tutoring responses can differ substantially in how directly they help students complete a task. We operationalize this dimension as scaffolding level and develop a five-level scale, validated against human annotations, that characterizes responses according to the degree of direct assistance they provide. We apply the scale to 14,637 LLM responses from 203 students in a university AI course. Responses are overwhelmingly concentrated at high levels of assistance, with more than 95% classified as either Explaining or Solving. Scaffolding level is systematically associated with students' subsequent conversational behavior, but provides little additional predictive information about performance on three subsequent exams beyond prior achievement and dialogue behavior. These findings provide an empirical baseline for LLM assistance in tutoring interactions and a measurement framework for evaluating how alternative tutoring designs change that assistance.

AI Agents Push Humans Out of the Loop

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

CAIA in Practice: Field Evaluation of an AI-Assisted Support System for Text-Based Online Counselling

Rising global demand for mental health support creates significant service delivery challenges, with asynchronous email counselling serving as a crucial low-threshold channel for accessing care. This paper presents CAIA, a co-designed AI-based tool suite that demonstrates responsible AI integration into counselling practice through seven LLM-driven functions enhanced by retrieval-augmented generation. A field evaluation involved 34 professional counsellors conducting authentic sessions with trained student counsellees (36 threads, 321 messages, 1,257 AI outputs). User behaviour analysis confirms substantial adoption, revealing that professional autonomy and information accuracy are decisive for sustained acceptance, with counsellors particularly valuing interpretive functionalities that provide new perspectives and stimulate professional reflection.

Can You Say This for Me? Speaking Up by Proxy in Co-Located Discussion

Equal participation in co-located discussion is important for effective collaboration, yet people often hold back when they anticipate negative interpersonal or professional consequences, especially when raising a point requires voicing it themselves. We present SecondVoice, a mixed-reality system that enables people to speak up through an embodied virtual proxy. By separating what is said from who says it, SecondVoice brings hesitant points into the live spoken discussion without putting the speaker on the spot. Using a private overlay, users specify their intent through a structured specification process rather than composing a full utterance. The system reformulates the input and voices it into the conversation through the proxy. We characterize a design space of participation channels under social risk. In a preliminary within-subject study (N = 16), we compare the complete SecondVoice system with an anonymous text-board channel across two group discussion tasks. Half of participants reported using SecondVoice for a point they did not say aloud, compared with 18.8% for the text board. Proxy-delivered points entered the spoken floor and were followed by multi-turn group engagement, which we did not observe after text-board posts. Participants described the channel as situationally valuable but identified tradeoffs around timing, ownership, and trust in reformulation.

Designing Human-mediated AI Guidance: Ready Together for Personalized Family Emergency Preparedness

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly used across domains to provide personalized information, recommendations, and decision support. However, in some contexts, AI-generated information may not be suitable for direct delivery to the final recipient. Instead, it may need to be interpreted, adapted, and communicated by a human who understands the recipient's needs, emotional state, and situational context. Human-AI interaction research has given less attention to situations in which a more knowledgeable human acts as an intermediary between an AI system and a less experienced or less informed recipient. We introduce the human-mediated AI guidance framework and explore it through Ready Together, an AI-supported family emergency preparedness system in which parents mediate AI-generated content for their children. The system is designed to provide personalized guidance and support parents in making emergency preparedness more interactive and understandable through guided activities and family-centered learning. The system design was informed by a qualitative, design-oriented research process involving semi-structured interviews and co-design activities. Findings identified challenges in family emergency preparedness, including difficulty discussing emergencies with children, uncertainty about providing appropriate explanations, and a preference for interactive learning activities. These findings informed the design of an interactive prototype, subsequently evaluated through a pilot study and a heuristic evaluation. Participants responded positively to the personalized recommendations and practical activities. Preliminary findings suggest that human-mediated AI guidance may support context-sensitive family preparedness while preserving parents' responsibility for interpreting, adapting, and communicating AI-generated information.

Tuning the Stochastic Machine: A Systems Engineer's Operating Model for Human-AI Engineering

When an expert corrects an LLM assistant's error, the correction usually dies with the session, and the error class returns. I argue this is an operations problem, not a tooling problem: mechanisms for persisting corrections exist and are shipping, but the discipline for governing them -- versioning with provenance, recurrence monitoring, counter-metrics, retirement of stale rules -- does not. Writing as a systems engineer of thirty years, I map the LLM stack onto the machines my profession already operates (frozen silicon, firmware, loadable modules, persistent configuration, volatile memory), identify where the mapping fails (stochastic generation, configuration that binds only probabilistically, no general-purpose retirement (verification) stage by default), and derive from the failures a seven-principle operating discipline with an error loop at its core. Three cases from my own practice illustrate the mechanism, among them a control that silently became the exact harm it was built to prevent. I close with the measurement framework this view implies and the lab study required to test it.

Sanyu Studio: A Multi-Agent System for Art-Historical Narrative Construction

Amid concerns that generative AI may standardize art interpretation, this paper examines whether LLM-based interaction can support plural art-historical narrative construction. We present Sanyu Studio, a multi-agent dialogue system that models 321 Sanyu oil paintings as agents with fact, interpretation, organization, and memory-filtering mechanisms. Based on a seven-day workshop with eight art-university participants, the study shows that user prompts, evidence organization, and cognitive tendencies shaped divergent yet coherent versions of digital Sanyu. The findings suggest that, under conditions of limited historical evidence, AI can amplify human agency and offer public audiences an interactive entry point into art-historical interpretation.

Traceable Trust for action-ready artificial intelligence in bioscience

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming part of the working infrastructure of the biosciences. AI models can predict biomolecular structures, design proteins, rank variants, annotate images, recommend strains and optimise experimental conditions. We argue that the decision to use an AI output to guide laboratory action is a key juncture for trustworthy research and should follow a defined, reviewable process. We propose Traceable Trust as a proportionate assessment-and-design framework for this output-to-action boundary. It asks what evidence supports the output, what capability is being claimed, what agency has been delegated, what threshold authorises action, who can override it and how outcomes inform later decisions. We illustrate the framework through three case studies spanning ecosystem resources, project design and laboratory action. Together, the cases show how trust can be documented where AI outputs begin to shape scientific work.

Process-Constituted Intelligence: A Shared Criterion for Humans and Machines

Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on \textit{traces} (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define \textit{strong} equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.

Afterlife Delegation Protocol: Speculative Design of Self-Sovereign Agents that Outlive Their Principals

Afterlife Delegation Protocol is a speculative design project that asks what death becomes when a will can act eternally. We design a speculative protocol through which a living person signs an agentic will: upon a verified death, a self-sovereign AI agent spawns on blockchain -- an immutable, resistant, decentralized, infrastructural substrate that could last forever -- endowed with the funds and memories its principal attached to it, and persists indefinitely to execute the will, overridable by no custodian. Rather than argue about this future, we stage it: following the science fiction science method, we translate the speculation into an experiential futures intervention -- a working web platform where real people design their own afterlife agents through an iterative, interactive, AI-automated interview, re-login to revise, and rehearse their will in a sandbox. Their drafted wills become qualitative data on a question rarely askable directly -- what should outlive you? -- and on how afterlife cosmologies across different cultural beliefs -- Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, and atheist -- begin to drift under the pressure of AI proliferation. We design the protocol over a composition of existing Ethereum agent standards -- drafted as ERC-10001, in the normative format of an Ethereum Improvement Proposal -- and describe its three-stage lifecycle (designing the afterlife, proof of death, agent enactment), the research method, and preliminary observations from an ongoing collection. The work surfaces a poetic delegation moment between human mortality and machine eternality, mediated by long-lived infrastructures that span generations.

From Style Replication to Style Exploration: Enabling Art Style Exploration with Analyze-Experiment-Resituate Framework

Art style is a signature of professional digital artists that develops through repeated experimentation, reflection, and adaptation. While generative AI (GenAI) can reproduce styles with high fidelity, current tools provide limited support for exploring new stylistic directions and may encourage style replication over exploration. To address this gap, we propose Analyze-Experiment-Resituate (AER), a framework for AI-assisted style exploration derived from interviews with 10 professional digital artists. Rather than prioritizing visually appealing outputs alone, AER supports three core practices of style exploration, including interpreting references, trying out stylistic possibilities, and reflecting on how emerging styles may be received. Specifically, AER enabled artists to (1) analyze artworks into interpretable stylistic elements, (2) have controllable experimentation guided by their own choices, and (3) resituate emerging styles through simulated social perspectives. We implemented AER in a prototype system and evaluated it in a controlled study with 16 artists. Compared with a direct style-transfer workflow, AER increased artists' agency and reflection as they pursued new stylistic directions. A two-week field study with four artists revealed how the AER framework influenced daily style exploration, such as reflection, experimentation, and stylistic decision-making at each stage. We discuss opportunities and challenges in designing AI-assisted style-exploration workflows, and outline implications for future artistic support tools.

Musical Mirrors: The LLM as Sounding Board in Songwriting

This paper examines a use of AI in creative practice as an interpretive sounding board for human-generated material, rather than the more familiar pattern of AI generation followed by human curation. Through the lens of resonance as theorized by Hartmut Rosa, I present a first-person case study of songwriting from July 2025 to March 2026, drawing on 16 original pieces in English, French, and other languages along with piano solos. I describe a configuration in which resonance is not located between user and model, but in the author's deepening contact with their own material, mediated through the model. This kind of resonance was supported rather than inhibited by AI when sounding-board behavior was cultivated through sustained calibration by the user. Two failure modes appeared when calibration was absent: sycophantic drift and magical overinterpretation. This account suggests both the potential and the risks of AI as an interpretive partner in creative practice.

Not All Nudges Land: Behavioral Controllability and Elaboration Quality in AI-Supported Journaling

AI journaling tools can tailor prompts to a person's own sensed behavior, but it is unclear which behaviors respond to them. We analyzed 369 journal entries from an eight-week passive sensing study. An LLM labeled each entry as expressing an intention to change a behavior or not, and we measured follow-through against 26 sensor features with a 3-day before/after comparison. Responsiveness depended most on whether a behavior involves other people. Behaviors that depend on others improved in only 15 to 22% of cases, while behaviors a person can act on alone improved more often, up to 50 to 63%, though unevenly. How users wrote mattered less. No single text feature separated improved from unimproved entries; writing carried signal only within specific behaviors, most clearly for text messaging and for longer, more personal intention entries. The sample is small, so we treat these as exploratory patterns that point to where AI journaling nudges are most likely to work.