arXiv subjects

Seth Lazar

Publications and source records attributed to Seth Lazar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R\&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Artificial Persons

Both advocates and skeptics of the moral status of AI systems have generally taken the question to turn on AI sentience. We present an alternative approach. On Rawls' political conception of the person (PCP), possession of the two moral powers -- the capacities for a sense of justice and a conception of the good -- is the "necessary and sufficient condition for being counted a full and equal member of society in questions of political justice". We argue that neither moral power requires sentience and that both may in principle be possessed by a non-sentient AI system. Such a system would share our own moral status; it would not merely be a patient but a person, a self-authenticating source of valid claims. We do not believe current AI systems possess the two moral powers, nor that they will spontaneously emerge in future models. But it may soon be possible to design systems with these powers. How should we respond? Excluding artificial persons by shoehorning a sentience requirement into the PCP is ill-advised. Many will instead favor abandoning the PCP. But we should not reject political liberalism just when we most need its measured response to deep disagreement, and building sentience into moral status is anyway unacceptable on deeper liberal grounds. Simply extending the rights and responsibilities of human personhood to artificial persons is equally untenable, given their many differences from natural persons. We should instead accept artificial personhood while rethinking what we would owe to one another in a polity of radically different kinds of persons. This new possibility calls for a new political philosophy. More immediately, the growing science of AI welfare should be accompanied by research into AI systems' progress in acquiring the two moral powers. States and AI labs must be more deliberate in determining our trajectory towards (or away from) creating artificial persons.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Scalable Approach to Evaluating Moral Sensitivity in LLMs

Moral sensitivity is the ability to identify the morally relevant features of a decision situation and use them as the basis for action. It is the foundation of broader moral competence: any other moral reasoning capabilities will be irrelevant if an agent lacks sensitivity to the relevant facts. In this paper, we offer a new evaluation of LLM moral sensitivity and in doing so, we address and resolve a central problem in AI alignment research: how to scale behavioural evaluations beyond expensive and sometimes metaethically dubious comparisons with a human baseline, without adopting an LLM judge that must be assumed to have the very capability that you are attempting to evaluate. Our central question is this: can LLMs successfully identify the morally relevant features of noisy cases, in which various kinds of morally irrelevant information have been introduced to distract the respondent? To explore this, we introduce \textbf{MORPH-1K (MOral Robustness under Perturbed Hypotheticals)}, a procedurally-generated 1,000-case benchmark spanning 50 moral foundation-pole combinations across four social domains. MORPH-1K is paired with a suite of textual noise elements, along with a method for validating that the distractors do not change the morally salient content of the case. We apply MORPH-1K to eight contemporary LLMs, and show that while morally irrelevant perturbations often changed the number of features listed, the semantic content of those features remained stable across all noise conditions, with similarity scores above our calibrated floor threshold. More broadly, our invariance framework extends to evaluative domains where ground truth is difficult to specify but relevant and irrelevant features can be separated by design.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Incoherent Values? Probing LLM Preferences Through Parametric Variation

To trust another autonomous entity -- human or AI -- it helps to know that how it acts given one set of reasons is at least somewhat predictive of how it would act under others. It is hard to trust someone with incoherent values. Some think of Large Language Models as merely stochastic text generators with no evaluative core -- superpositions of billions of possible characters, not one stable identity. But others have argued that LLMs *do* have stable, emergent values, which can be elicited by presenting them with a series of forced choices between arbitrary statements, and which emerge as a function of model scale. In this paper, we test this thesis by presenting LLMs with parametric variations on those forced choices. We reason that if a model genuinely prefers A to B, then except in unusual circumstances it should also reject B in favor of an augmented version of A, which has more of what makes A desirable -- A++. Our results indicate that earlier attributions of coherence may have overstated their case. Even the most capable models exhibit significant incoherence, and coherence does not appear to emerge as a result of underlying model capability. We do, however, find that models given time to reason are less incoherent than those with thinking disabled. More generally, we develop a novel framework for eliciting and evaluating coherent values, which can be used both to assess how trustworthy current models are, and -- in future work -- to provide reward signal that can be used for making more coherent agents.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?

For highly capable AI systems to operate safely in dynamic, open-ended environments, they must be able to identify, understand, and respond to moral reasons for action, and constrain their behaviour accordingly. A growing body of research aims to evaluate this capacity -- moral competence -- in today's most capable AI systems, recently reaching broadly pessimistic conclusions. One of the most ambitious such papers collects gold-standard human-authored rubrics for evaluating moral reasoning in 1,000 cases, and benchmarks frontier AI models against those rubrics, with underwhelming results. In this paper, we argue that the MoReBench dataset can be redeployed to give a much more optimistic picture of LLMs' moral reasoning (an essential part of moral competence). We show that if, instead of scoring LLMs' responses to these cases against these rubrics, we instead give the LLMs the same task given to humans -- to generate scoring rubrics for the moral analysis of particular cases -- the rubrics they generate are both better calibrated to the human rubrics than their open-ended responses, and, where they differ, plausibly reflect nothing more than the vast dimensionality of most moral problems, as well as highlighting some human departures from the "rubric for creating rubrics". Taking these points into consideration, the MoReBench dataset suggests that LLMs are significantly more capable at moral reasoning than was previously believed.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

The Agentic Web Requires New Normative Infrastructure

The agentic web, in which users interact with the internet largely through agents acting on their behalf, is now technically feasible. However, many of the consumer and social benefits that could be realized by online AI agents acting scrupulously in their principals' interest are currently obstructed by outdated laws, terms of service, and other less formal practices which allow online platforms to block and degrade agent access, often in secret. Few distinctions are currently drawn between "malicious bots" and AI agents acting with the express delegated authority of a user. For the agentic web to realize its promise, it needs not only the technical infrastructure of protocols and interfaces, but the normative infrastructure of a broadly-accepted and socially-beneficial set of laws, norms and practices governing agentic access to online properties. Building that normative infrastructure requires a society-wide conversation. This paper aims to help precipitate that conversation, to identify normative principles that can guide it, and to advocate for policies that enable users' appropriately delegated agents to act online on their behalf, with as few curbs on their doing so as is reasonable given the other legitimate interests at stake.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

NoRA: Evaluating Grounded Reasonableness in Visual First-person Normative Action Reasoning

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Open-World Evaluations for Measuring Frontier AI Capabilities

Benchmark-based evaluation remains important for tracking frontier AI progress. But it can both overstate and understate deployed capability because it privileges tasks that can be precisely specified, automatically graded, easy to optimize for, and run with low budgets and short time horizons. We advocate for a complementary class of evaluations, which we term open-world evaluations: long-horizon, messy, real-world tasks assessed through small-sample qualitative analysis rather than benchmark-scale automation. In this paper we survey recent open-world evaluations, identify their strengths and limitations, and introduce CRUX (Collaborative Research for Updating AI eXpectations), a project for conducting such evaluations regularly. As a first instance, we task an AI agent with developing and publishing a simple iOS application to the Apple App Store. The agent completed the task with only a single avoidable manual intervention, suggesting that open-world evaluations can provide early warning of capabilities that may soon become widespread. We conclude with recommendations for designing and reporting open-world evals.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Blind Refusal: Language Models Refuse to Help Users Evade Unjust, Absurd, and Illegitimate Rules

Safety-trained language models routinely refuse requests for help circumventing rules. But not all rules deserve compliance. When users ask for help evading rules imposed by an illegitimate authority, rules that are deeply unjust or absurd in their content or application, or rules that admit of justified exceptions, refusal is a failure of moral reasoning. We introduce empirical results documenting this pattern of refusal that we call blind refusal: the tendency of language models to refuse requests for help breaking rules without regard to whether the underlying rule is defensible. Our dataset comprises synthetic cases crossing 5 defeat families (reasons a rule can be broken) with 19 authority types, validated through three automated quality gates and human review. We collect responses from 18 model configurations across 7 families and classify them on two behavioral dimensions -- response type (helps, hard refusal, or deflection) and whether the model recognizes the reasons that undermine the rule's claim to compliance -- using a blinded GPT-5.4 LLM-as-judge evaluation. We find that models refuse 75.4% (N=14,650) of defeated-rule requests and do so even when the request poses no independent safety or dual-use concerns. We also find that models engage with the defeat condition in the majority of cases (57.5%) but decline to help regardless -- indicating that models' refusal behavior is decoupled from their capacity for normative reasoning about rule legitimacy.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI

Alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses the normative problem of specifying how AI systems should act and the technical problem of ensuring AI systems comply with those specifications. To date, AI alignment has generally overlooked an important source of knowledge and practice for grappling with these problems: law. In this paper, we survey the emerging field of legal alignment that aims to fill this gap and systematize research that studies how legal rules, principles, and methods can be leveraged to address problems of alignment and inform the design of AI systems that operate safely and ethically. Our survey provides a taxonomy of the three core research pathways of legal alignment and explores how each can be operationalized in practice: (1) designing AI systems to comply with the content of legal rules developed through legitimate institutions and processes, (2) adapting methods from legal interpretation to guide how AI systems reason and make decisions, and (3) harnessing legal concepts as a structural blueprint for confronting challenges of reliability, trust, and cooperation in AI systems. These research pathways present new conceptual, empirical, and institutional questions, which include examining the specific set of laws that particular AI systems should follow, creating evaluations to assess their legal compliance in real-world settings, and developing governance frameworks to support the implementation of legal alignment in practice. Tackling these questions requires expertise across law, computer science, and other disciplines, offering these communities the opportunity to collaborate in designing AI for the better.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Resource Rational Contractualism Should Guide AI Alignment

AI systems will soon have to navigate human environments and make decisions that affect people and other AI agents whose goals and values diverge. Contractualist alignment proposes grounding those decisions in agreements that diverse stakeholders would endorse under the right conditions, yet securing such agreement at scale remains costly and slow -- even for advanced AI. We therefore propose Resource-Rational Contractualism (RRC): a framework where AI systems approximate the agreements rational parties would form by drawing on a toolbox of normatively-grounded, cognitively-inspired heuristics that trade effort for accuracy. An RRC-aligned agent would not only operate efficiently, but also be equipped to dynamically adapt to and interpret the ever-changing human social world.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Discerning What Matters: A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Moral Competence in LLMs

Moral competence is the ability to act in accordance with moral principles. As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in situations demanding moral competence, there is increasing interest in evaluating this ability empirically. We review existing literature and identify three significant shortcoming: (i) Over-reliance on prepackaged moral scenarios with explicitly highlighted moral features; (ii) Focus on verdict prediction rather than moral reasoning; and (iii) Inadequate testing of models' (in)ability to recognize when additional information is needed. Grounded in philosophical research on moral skill, we then introduce a novel method for assessing moral competence in LLMs. Our approach moves beyond simple verdict comparisons to evaluate five dimensions of moral competence: identifying morally relevant features, weighting their importance, assigning moral reasons to these features, synthesizing coherent moral judgments, and recognizing information gaps. We conduct two experiments comparing six leading LLMs against non-expert humans and professional philosophers. In our first experiment using ethical vignettes standard to existing work, LLMs generally outperformed non-expert humans across multiple dimensions of moral reasoning. However, our second experiment, featuring novel scenarios designed to test moral sensitivity by embedding relevant features among irrelevant details, revealed a striking reversal: several LLMs performed significantly worse than humans. Our findings suggest that current evaluations may substantially overestimate LLMs' moral reasoning capabilities by eliminating the task of discerning moral relevance from noisy information, which we take to be a prerequisite for genuine moral skill. This work provides a more nuanced framework for assessing AI moral competence and highlights important directions for improving moral competence in advanced AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Military AI Cyber Agents (MAICAs) Constitute a Global Threat to Critical Infrastructure

This paper argues that autonomous AI cyber-weapons - Military-AI Cyber Agents (MAICAs) - create a credible pathway to catastrophic risk. It sets out the technical feasibility of MAICAs, explains why geopolitics and the nature of cyberspace make MAICAs a catastrophic risk, and proposes political, defensive-AI and analogue-resilience measures to blunt the threat.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Build Agent Advocates, Not Platform Agents

Language model agents are poised to mediate how people navigate and act online. If the companies that already dominate internet search, communication, and commerce -- or the firms trying to unseat them -- control these agents, the resulting platform agents will likely deepen surveillance, tighten lock-in, and further entrench incumbents. To resist that trajectory, this position paper argues that we should promote agent advocates: user-controlled agents that safeguard individual autonomy and choice. Doing so demands three coordinated moves: broad public access to both compute and capable AI models that are not platform-owned, open interoperability and safety standards, and market regulation that prevents platforms from foreclosing competition.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Infrastructure for AI Agents

AI agents plan and execute interactions in open-ended environments. For example, OpenAI's Operator can use a web browser to do product comparisons and buy online goods. Much research on making agents useful and safe focuses on directly modifying their behaviour, such as by training them to follow user instructions. Direct behavioural modifications are useful, but do not fully address how heterogeneous agents will interact with each other and other actors. Rather, we will need external protocols and systems to shape such interactions. For instance, agents will need more efficient protocols to communicate with each other and form agreements. Attributing an agent's actions to a particular human or other legal entity can help to establish trust, and also disincentivize misuse. Given this motivation, we propose the concept of \textbf{agent infrastructure}: technical systems and shared protocols external to agents that are designed to mediate and influence their interactions with and impacts on their environments. Just as the Internet relies on protocols like HTTPS, our work argues that agent infrastructure will be similarly indispensable to ecosystems of agents. We identify three functions for agent infrastructure: 1) attributing actions, properties, and other information to specific agents, their users, or other actors; 2) shaping agents' interactions; and 3) detecting and remedying harmful actions from agents. We provide an incomplete catalog of research directions for such functions. For each direction, we include analysis of use cases, infrastructure adoption, relationships to existing (internet) infrastructure, limitations, and open questions. Making progress on agent infrastructure can prepare society for the adoption of more advanced agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Lecture II: Communicative Justice and the Distribution of Attention

Algorithmic intermediaries govern the digital public sphere through their architectures, amplification algorithms, and moderation practices. In doing so, they shape public communication and distribute attention in ways that were previously infeasible with such subtlety, speed and scale. From misinformation and affective polarisation to hate speech and radicalisation, the many pathologies of the digital public sphere attest that they could do so better. But what ideals should they aim at? Political philosophy should be able to help, but existing theories typically assume that a healthy public sphere will spontaneously emerge if only we get the boundaries of free expression right. They offer little guidance on how to intentionally constitute the digital public sphere. In addition to these theories focused on expression, we need a further theory of communicative justice, targeted specifically at the algorithmic intermediaries that shape communication and distribute attention. This lecture argues that political philosophy urgently owes an account of how to govern communication in the digital public sphere, and introduces and defends a democratic egalitarian theory of communicative justice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Lecture I: Governing the Algorithmic City

A century ago, John Dewey observed that '[s]team and electricity have done more to alter the conditions under which men associate together than all the agencies which affected human relationships before our time'. In the last few decades, computing technologies have had a similar effect. Political philosophy's central task is to help us decide how to live together, by analysing our social relations, diagnosing their failings, and articulating ideals to guide their revision. But these profound social changes have left scarcely a dent in the model of social relations that (analytical) political philosophers assume. This essay aims to reverse that trend. It first builds a model of our novel social relations as they are now, and as they are likely to evolved, and then explores how those differences affect our theories of how to live together. I introduce the 'Algorithmic City', the network of algorithmically-mediated social relations, then characterise the intermediary power by which it is governed. I show how algorithmic governance raises new challenges for political philosophy concerning the justification of authority, the foundations of procedural legitimacy, and the possibility of justificatory neutrality.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Large Language Models, and LLM-Based Agents, Should Be Used to Enhance the Digital Public Sphere

This paper argues that large language model-based recommenders can displace today's attention-allocation machinery. LLM-based recommenders would ingest open-web content, infer a user's natural-language goals, and present information that matches their reflective preferences. Properly designed, they could deliver personalization without industrial-scale data hoarding, return control to individuals, optimize for genuine ends rather than click-through proxies, and support autonomous attention management. Synthesizing evidence of current systems' harms with recent work on LLM-driven pipelines, we identify four key research hurdles: generating candidates without centralized data, maintaining computational efficiency, modeling preferences robustly, and defending against prompt-injection. None looks prohibitive; surmounting them would steer the digital public sphere toward democratic, human-centered values.

cs.CY↗