Mark Cote

William Seymour, Adam Jenkins, Mark Cote et al.

LLM-driven conversational AI is beginning to disappear into the background, shifting from something used directly towards something increasingly integrated into existing workflows. In the process, markers of origin and training are smoothed away as LLMs become commodified in the eyes of users. We explore how people approach using a web browser with conversational AI built in, focusing on how they develop their understanding and determine whether to trust its outputs. We conducted a study where 20 participants used the Copilot AI features in Microsoft Edge to conduct information retrieval and planning tasks. Participants relied on a combination of existing perceptions of LLMs and internet search, tracing the effect of beliefs about how Copilot generated answers on prompting strategies. The inclusion of citations increased the trustworthiness of answers without participants feeling the need to be check them, with participants often reaching for the same information sources as the CAI when fact-checking.

Mark Cote, Susana Aires

This paper argues that a techno-philosophical reading of the EU AI Act provides insight into the long-term dynamics of data in AI systems, specifically, how the lifecycle from ingestion to deployment generates recursive value chains that challenge existing frameworks for Responsible AI. We introduce a conceptual tool to frame the AI pipeline, spanning data, training regimes, architectures, feature stores, and transfer learning. Using cross-disciplinary methods, we develop a technically grounded and philosophically coherent analysis of regulatory blind spots. Our central claim is that what remains absent from policymaking is an account of the dynamic of becoming that underpins both the technical operation and economic logic of AI. To address this, we advance a formal reading of AI inspired by Simondonian philosophy of technology, reworking his concept of individuation to model the AI lifecycle, including the pre-individual milieu, individuation, and individuated AI. To translate these ideas, we introduce futurity: the self-reinforcing lifecycle of AI, where more data enhances performance, deepens personalisation, and expands application domains. Futurity highlights the recursively generative, non-rivalrous nature of data, underpinned by infrastructures like feature stores that enable feedback, adaptation, and temporal recursion. Our intervention foregrounds escalating power asymmetries, particularly the tech oligarchy whose infrastructures of capture, training, and deployment concentrate value and decision-making. We argue that effective regulation must address these infrastructural and temporal dynamics, and propose measures including lifecycle audits, temporal traceability, feedback accountability, recursion transparency, and a right to contest recursive reuse.