Shreya Kapoor

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.

Philipp Schoenegger, Francesco Salvi, Jiacheng Liu et al. · oxford

We directly compare the persuasion capabilities of a frontier large language model (LLM; Claude Sonnet 3.5) against incentivized human persuaders in an interactive, real-time conversational quiz setting. In this preregistered, large-scale incentivized experiment, participants (quiz takers) completed an online quiz where persuaders (either humans or LLMs) attempted to persuade quiz takers toward correct or incorrect answers. We find that LLM persuaders achieved significantly higher compliance with their directional persuasion attempts than incentivized human persuaders, demonstrating superior persuasive capabilities in both truthful (toward correct answers) and deceptive (toward incorrect answers) contexts. We also find that LLM persuaders significantly increased quiz takers' accuracy, leading to higher earnings, when steering quiz takers toward correct answers, and significantly decreased their accuracy, leading to lower earnings, when steering them toward incorrect answers. Overall, our findings suggest that AI's persuasion capabilities already exceed those of humans that have real-money bonuses tied to performance. Our findings of increasingly capable AI persuaders thus underscore the urgency of emerging alignment and governance frameworks.

Maximilian Weiherer, Andreea Dogaru, Shreya Kapoor et al.

As we all know, writing scientific papers together with our beloved colleagues is a truly remarkable experience (partially): endless discussions about the same useless paragraph over and over again, followed by long days and long nights -- both at the same time. What a wonderful ride it is! What a beautiful life we have. But wait, there's one tiny little problem that utterly shatters the peace, turning even renowned scientists into bloodthirsty monsters: author order. The reason is that, contrary to widespread opinion, it's not the font size that matters, but the way things are ordered. Of course, this is a fairly well-known fact among scientists all across the planet (and beyond) and explains clearly why we regularly have to read about yet another escalated paper submission in local police reports. In this paper, we take an important step backwards to tackle this issue by solving the so-called author ordering problem (AOP) once and for all. Specifically, we propose AMOR, a system that replaces silly constructs like co-first or co-middle authorship with a simple yet easy probabilistic approach based on random shuffling of the author list at viewing time. In addition to AOP, we also solve the ambiguous author ordering citation problem} (AAOCP) on the fly. Stop author violence, be human.