Stephan Lewandowsky

Ezequiel Lopez-Lopez, Christoph M. Abels, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen et al.

People navigate complex environments using cues, heuristics, and other strategies, which are often adaptive in stable settings. However, as AI increasingly permeates society's information environments, those become more adaptive and evolving: LLM-based chatbots participate in extended interaction, maintain conversational histories, mirror social cues, and can hypercustomize responses, thereby shaping not only what information is accessed but how questions are framed, how evidence is interpreted, and when action feels warranted. Here we propose a framework for sustained human-AI interaction that rests on invariant features of human cognition and human--AI interaction and centers on three interlinked phenomena: entanglement between users and AI systems, the emergence of cognitive and behavioral drift over repeated interactions, and the role of metacognition in the awareness and regulation of these dynamics. As conversational agents provide cues (e.g., fluency, coherence, responsiveness) that people treat as informative, subjective confidence and action readiness may increase without corresponding gains in epistemic reliability, making drift difficult to detect and correct. We describe these dynamics across micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. The framework identifies four metacognitive intervention points and psychologically informed interventions that provide metacognitive scaffolding (boosting and self-nudging). Finally, we outline a long-horizon research agenda for scientific foresight.

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Joseph B. Bak-Coleman, Stephan Lewandowsky, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen et al.

Social media is nearly ubiquitous in modern life, raising concerns about its societal impacts -- from mental health and polarization to violence and democratic disruption. Yet research on its causal effects is still inconclusive: Various methods, spanning observational to experimental, can yield seemingly conflicting results. Considering the complexity of such socio-technical systems, with coupled networks, feedback loops and collective phenomena, this may not be surprising. Here, we enumerate and examine the features of social media as a complex system that challenge our ability to infer causality at societal scales. Attempts to ascertain and summarize causal effects have tended to prioritize findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, like observational studies, RCTs rely on assumptions that may frequently be violated in the context of social media, especially regarding societal outcomes at scale. Drawing on insight from disciplines that have faced similar challenges, like climate-science or epidemiology, we propose a path forward that combines the strengths of observational and experimental approaches while acknowledging the limitations of each. Progress, we argue, requires moving beyond isolated, linear effects to mechanistic explanations of how social media platforms generate collective outcomes.

Segun Aroyehun, Stephan Lewandowsky, David Garcia

The pursuit of truth is central to democratic deliberation and governance, yet political discourse reflects varying epistemic orientations, ranging from evidence-based reasoning grounded in verifiable information to intuition-based reasoning rooted in beliefs and subjective interpretation. We introduce a scalable approach to measure epistemic orientation using the Evidence--Minus--Intuition (EMI) score, derived from large language model (LLM) ratings and embedding-based semantic similarity. Applying this approach to 15 million parliamentary speech segments spanning 1946 to 2025 across seven countries, we examine temporal patterns in discourse and its association with deliberative democracy and governance. We find that EMI is positively associated with deliberative democracy within countries over time, with consistent relationships in both contemporaneous and lagged analyses. EMI is also positively associated with the transparency and predictable implementation of laws as a dimension of governance. These findings suggest that the epistemic nature of political discourse is crucial for both the quality of democracy and governance.