arXiv subjects

Merlin Stein

Publications and source records attributed to Merlin Stein.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How are AI agents used? Evidence from 177,000 MCP tools

Today's AI agents are built on large language models (LLMs) equipped with tools to access and modify external environments, such as corporate file systems, API-accessible platforms and websites. AI agents offer the promise of automating computer-based tasks across the economy. However, developers, researchers and governments lack an understanding of how AI agents are currently being used, and for what kinds of (consequential) tasks. To address this gap, we evaluated 177,436 agent tools created from 11/2024 to 02/2026 by monitoring public Model Context Protocol (MCP) server repositories, the current predominant standard for agent tools. We categorise tools according to their direct impact: perception tools to access and read data, reasoning tools to analyse data or concepts, and action tools to directly modify external environments, like file editing, sending emails or steering drones in the physical world. We use O*NET mapping to identify each tool's task domain and consequentiality. Software development accounts for 67% of all agent tools, and 90% of MCP server downloads. Notably, the share of 'action' tools rose from 27% to 65% of total usage over the 16-month period sampled. While most action tools support medium-stakes tasks like editing files, there are action tools for higher-stakes tasks like financial transactions. Using agentic financial transactions as an example, we demonstrate how governments and regulators can use this monitoring method to extend oversight beyond model outputs to the tool layer to monitor risks of agent deployment.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI

Large language models (LLMs) distinguish themselves from previous technologies by functioning as collaborative ``thought partners,'' capable of engaging more fluidly in natural language on a range of tasks. As LLMs increasingly influence consequential decisions across diverse domains from healthcare to personal advice, the risk of overreliance -- relying on LLMs beyond their capabilities -- grows. This paper argues that measuring and mitigating overreliance must become central to LLM research and deployment. First, we consolidate risks from overreliance at both the individual and societal levels, including high-stakes errors, governance challenges, and cognitive deskilling. Then, we explore LLM characteristics, system design features, and user cognitive biases that together raise serious and unique concerns about overreliance on LLMs in practice. We also examine historical approaches for measuring overreliance, identifying three important gaps and proposing three promising directions to improve measurement. Finally, we propose mitigation strategies that can be pursued to ensure LLMs augment rather than undermine human capabilities.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Measuring AI agent autonomy: Towards a scalable approach with code inspection

AI agents are AI systems that can achieve complex goals autonomously. Assessing the level of agent autonomy is crucial for understanding both their potential benefits and risks. Current assessments of autonomy often focus on specific risks and rely on run-time evaluations -- observations of agent actions during operation. We introduce a code-based assessment of autonomy that eliminates the need to run an AI agent to perform specific tasks, thereby reducing the costs and risks associated with run-time evaluations. Using this code-based framework, the orchestration code used to run an AI agent can be scored according to a taxonomy that assesses attributes of autonomy: impact and oversight. We demonstrate this approach with the AutoGen framework and select applications.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

The Role of Governments in Increasing Interconnected Post-Deployment Monitoring of AI

Language-based AI systems are diffusing into society, bringing positive and negative impacts. Mitigating negative impacts depends on accurate impact assessments, drawn from an empirical evidence base that makes causal connections between AI usage and impacts. Interconnected post-deployment monitoring combines information about model integration and use, application use, and incidents and impacts. For example, inference time monitoring of chain-of-thought reasoning can be combined with long-term monitoring of sectoral AI diffusion, impacts and incidents. Drawing on information sharing mechanisms in other industries, we highlight example data sources and specific data points that governments could collect to inform AI risk management.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Monitoring Human Dependence On AI Systems With Reliance Drills

AI systems are assisting humans with increasingly diverse intellectual tasks but are still prone to mistakes. Humans are over-reliant on this assistance if they trust AI-generated advice, even though they would make a better decision on their own. To identify such instances of over-reliance, this paper proposes the reliance drill: an exercise that tests whether a human can recognise mistakes in AI-generated advice. Our paper examines the reasons why an organisation might choose to implement reliance drills and the doubts they may have about doing so. As an example, we consider the benefits and risks that could arise when using these drills to detect over-reliance on AI in healthcare professionals. We conclude by arguing that reliance drills should become a standard risk management practice for ensuring humans remain appropriately involved in the oversight of AI-assisted decisions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations -- AISIs?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institutes and governments worldwide are deciding whether they evaluate advanced AI themselves, support a private evaluation ecosystem or do both. Evaluation regimes have been established in a wide range of industry contexts to monitor and evaluate firms' compliance with regulation. Evaluation is a necessary governance tool to understand and manage the risks of a technology. This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform (i) who should evaluate which parts of advanced AI; and (ii) how much capacity public bodies may need to evaluate advanced AI effectively. First, the effective responsibility distribution between public and private evaluators depends heavily on specific industry and evaluation conditions. On the basis of advanced AI's risk profile, the sensitivity of information involved in the evaluation process, and the high costs of verifying safety and benefit claims of AI Labs, we recommend that public bodies become directly involved in safety critical, especially gray- and white-box, AI model evaluations. Governance and security audits, which are well-established in other industry contexts, as well as black-box model evaluations, may be more efficiently provided by a private market of evaluators and auditors under public oversight. Secondly, to effectively fulfil their role in advanced AI audits, public bodies need extensive access to models and facilities. AISI's capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration, potentially requiring 100s of employees for evaluations in large jurisdictions like the EU or US, like in nuclear safety and life sciences.

cs.CY↗