Large Language Models (LLMs) are machine learning (ML) models that have an increasingly large carbon footprint through their development and use. Efforts to increase the energy efficiency of these models have not translated into reduced consumption due to rebound effects such as Jevons Paradox - that increased efficiency drives increased use. There is therefore a need for additional measures to solve this problem.
We suggest that one possible way forward is to use life cycle thinking, and view LLMs as products that can become waste. With this perspective, we investigate the potential of the waste hierarchy from the EU's Waste Framework Directive, which suggests five different measures for how to manage waste: prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal. We examine how these measures can inform and motivate new types of thinking and approaches to reducing LLM waste and their environmental impact in general.
Applying the waste hierarchy to LLMs highlights that preventing waste is essential for reducing the models' environmental impact, mainly because it reduces the need for training new models. Prevention can be achieved through many existing methods for reusing, "recycling", and "recovering" LLMs. Additionally, disposal can be important both for saving energy and for keeping a considerate attitude to the resources being spent on training LLMs. We also call to attention that prevention of unnecessary use of LLMs carry huge potential for lowering the climate impact of the models.
Erik Johannes Husom, Maria Emine Nylund, Ophelia Prillard· 0 citations
Powered two-wheeler riders face critical safety challenges in low- and middle-income countries, yet limited studies exist on how cognitive stressors such as Time Pressure influence collision risk. We address this gap by introducing a comprehensive dataset consisting of over 129,000 labeled multivariate time-series samples, gathered across 153 simulator rides from 51 participants under No, Low, and High TP scenarios. Across each sequence, we capture 64 distinct attributes covering vehicle motion, rider control actions, spatial proximity, and rule compliance indicators. Using this dataset, we introduce MotoSafety, a new edge-AI framework built on the Learned Temporal Importance (LTI) concept. MotoSafety achieves 94.97% accuracy and 99.33% ROC AUC, outperforming ten baselines, including TimesNet and LLM4TS, and achieves 0.039 MSE and 0.094 MAE for forecasting (4.4x lower error than Time-LLM and iTransformer). With only 1.15M parameters and 0.135 ms latency, it is suitable for edge deployment on low-cost CPU hardware. Using ground truth TP as an inductive bias improves accuracy from 94.09% to 94.97%, while predicted TP achieves 94.82%. Using only 21 IMU+GPS features, it achieves 93.91% accuracy, indicating practical deployment. Beyond PTW safety, the architecture shows better transferability to human activity (97.66%) and clinical (99.65%) domains. This lightweight framework advances PTW collision risk assessment, supporting the Safe System Approach for Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Sumit S. Shevtekar, Chandresh K. Maurya, Gourab Sil et al.· 0 citations
Long-horizon egocentric memory transforms continuous first-person video and audio into a searchable record of past experiences. We demonstrate two bottlenecks in existing systems: indices built from context-poor captions are unreliable for agentic search, while retrieval ignores a question's temporal intent. To address both bottlenecks, we introduce EgoCITE (Egocentric Context-augmented Indexing and Time-aware Evidence retrieval), a long-horizon agentic memory framework for egocentric QA. EgoCITE comprises three components. EgoScheme uses local multimodal context to turn fragmentary video captions and speech transcripts into self-contained atomic memory indices. EgoIndex organizes complementary action, activity, utterance, and conversation representations into searchable multi-view memory indices at multiple granularities. EgoRetrv combines semantic search with question-conditioned temporal relevance scoring and curation of retrieved evidence. We evaluate EgoCITE on EgoLifeQA, EgoMem, and EgoR1-Bench in terms of answer accuracy and target-event retrieval alignment. EgoCITE improves accuracy over agentic memory baselines by at least 4.4--14.2% while achieving 36$\times$ lower cost than long-context LLM agents.
Le Zhang, Hao Chen, Vlad Roznyatovskiy et al.· 0 citations
AI tools that help people judge online claims are usually evaluated while the tool is present. This paper asks a different question: after using such a tool, what can the user still do on their own? I call this epistemic transfer. It refers to the effect of prior AI-assisted verification on later unassisted performance on new claims. In this paper, I make three contributions. First, I distinguish epistemic transfer from nearby outcomes such as correction effects, trust, reliance, and human--AI team performance. Second, I introduce two simple quantities for studying it: the Epistemic Transfer Effect (ETE), which compares delayed unassisted performance across conditions, and Tool-Removal Cost (TRC), which measures the immediate drop in performance when the tool is taken away. Third, I turn these ideas into a practical evaluation protocol that can be used in online experiments or field studies. The protocol combines answer-first and evidence-first AI conditions with active-practice and no-practice controls, delayed tests on held-out claims, behavioral measures, and participant- and item-level analyses. Putting ETE and TRC together yields a diagnostic space that separates capability building, capability plus tool advantage, epistemic inertness or de-skilling, and verification on loan. The point is not that every AI tool must teach. The point is that when independent judgment matters, we should test not only whether a tool helps now, but also what it leaves behind.
AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can restore sensory and motor function in individuals with severe neurological impairment, but the literature is fragmented between invasive neuroprosthetics and non-invasive electrophysiological decoders, with inconsistent terminology and metrics. This scoping review maps BCI-mediated sensory restoration along a unified 2x2 framework (invasiveness x signal direction), charts representative modalities and their trade-offs, and synthesizes a convergence roadmap for the field. Eligible sources were peer-reviewed studies, clinical trials, and authoritative reviews on BCI or neuroprosthetic systems for sensory or motor restoration, substitution, or augmentation, published in English between 1969 and 2025, restricted to high-impact venues to prioritize landmark evidence. Rather than an exhaustive database search, we charted a purposively assembled, citation-chained corpus of 31 pivotal sources for modality, signal type, invasiveness, signal direction, resolution, clinical risk, cost, and regulatory maturity. We define and distinguish restoration, substitution, and augmentation, and map the corpus onto the four quadrants of the framework. The corpus is dominated by efferent restoration (21 of 31) and invasive interfaces (22 of 31), and is concentrated after 2015 (25 of 31). Non-invasive, AI-augmented silent-speech decoding has matured rapidly since 2023, while invasive speech and motor neuroprostheses have achieved near-conversational communication rates. The unified taxonomy clarifies trade-offs between pathways and the role of foundation models in closing the gap between them. We outline a near-, medium-, and long-term roadmap toward closed-loop, bidirectional restoration, and identify gaps in metric standardization, longitudinal evidence, and cross-community collaboration as priorities for future research.
The rise of AI agents is transforming how software can be built. The promise of agents is that developers might write code quicker, delegate multiple tasks to different agents, and even write a full piece of software purely out of natural language. In reality, what roles agents play in professional software development remains in question. This paper investigates how experienced developers use agents in building software, including their motivations, strategies, task suitability, and sentiments. Through field observations (N=13) and qualitative surveys (N=99), we find that while experienced developers value agents as a productivity boost, they retain their agency in software design and implementation out of insistence on fundamental software quality attributes, employing strategies for controlling agent behavior leveraging their expertise. In addition, experienced developers enjoy working with agents as source of collaboration rather than complete delegation given their judgment for task suitability. Our results shed light on the value of software development best practices in effective use of agents, suggest the kinds of tasks for which agents may be suitable, and point towards future opportunities for better agentic interfaces and agentic use guidelines.
Ruanqianqian Huang, Avery Reyna, Sorin Lerner et al.· 0 citations
AI models have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, yet the mechanisms underlying their capabilities and the risks they may pose remain poorly understood. As AI development becomes faster and increasingly automated, mechanistic exploration remains largely manual, widening the gap between what models can do and our ability to understand and control them. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mechanist, an agentic system that uses AI as a scientific instrument for the autonomous discovery of mechanisms underlying AI intelligence. To support autonomous mechanistic discovery, we construct an interpretability-focused knowledge graph of approximately 13,000 papers and integrate it with a multidisciplinary database of 43 million papers spanning 26 fields. We further curate a library of 32 foundational methods for mechanism analysis, causal intervention, and validation. Compared with Claude Code and existing AI-scientist systems, Mechanist generates more valuable mechanism hypotheses and executes experiments more reliably. Mechanist also demonstrates a progression from discovering model behaviors to explaining and controlling AI models. Specifically, Mechanist first uncovers a counterintuitive safety risk in scientific laboratories, showing that unsafe traits can transfer across modalities through apparently safe training data. Mechanist then develops a mechanism theory of belief, revealing how models represent world knowledge, form beliefs, infer the beliefs of others, and how these mechanisms emerge during pretraining. Finally, Mechanist translates these mechanistic insights into practical interventions that improve model performance across diverse scenarios and steer scientific foundation models toward generating DNA sequences with specified properties.
Mengru Wang, Junfeng Fang, Shuofei Qiao et al.· 0 citations
Appropriate reliance on AI advice has become a central research theme in human-AI collaboration. Existing frameworks have focused exclusively on point predictions as AI advice. However, set-valued AI advice (e.g., discrete sets or continuous intervals) is increasingly being used to communicate uncertainty and improve human decision making. In this paper, we develop the first formal framework for measuring appropriate reliance on set-valued AI advice within the sequential judge-advisor paradigm, spanning both classification and regression tasks. For classification, we first introduce the dimensions that are necessary for evaluating set-valued AI advice. We then define two metrics: correct reliance rate on AI and correct reliance rate on self, which jointly characterize appropriate reliance in this setting. For regression, we introduce quantity of AI reliance and quality of AI reliance, which respectively measure whether a decision maker utilized the AI advice and whether their reliance helped them get closer to the ground truth relative to their initial estimate. Through the application of our framework, we demonstrate how these metrics capture important nuances in human-AI collaboration that existing measures overlook.
Large language model (LLM) agents can now carry out long-horizon technical workflows involving complex tool use, code execution, file edits, and generated artifacts. As agents do more work faster, the productivity bottleneck shifts from producing outputs to auditing whether those outputs are correct and trustworthy. Agent observability systems make fine-grained execution events visible, but visibility alone still leaves reviewers to reconstruct which actions, artifacts, and validation steps matter for a particular conclusion. We introduce LEDGER - Layered Evidence and Decision Graphs for Execution Review, a tracing and review system that builds layered trace graphs over observed agent sessions. LEDGER preserves Trace Records while grouping them into Evidence Nodes and Workflow Nodes, representing artifacts as evidence anchors, and adding typed semantic edges that connect claims to supporting actions, artifacts, and checks. Through data-analysis and coding examples, we show how the resulting traces expose workflow decisions, artifact lineage, repair steps, validation coverage, and claim-support paths for evidence-centered audit.
Daehong Kim, Haichao Miao, Shusen Liu· 0 citations
Large language models are being incorporated into sensitive and important decision-making processes across nearly all fields. While prior work studies model bias around inputs and scenario framing, models can also behave in unexpected and undesirable ways due to context accumulated over their deployment. In this work, we study a medical example in which a model is asked to assign resource-allocation probabilities to two people given brief clinical context, and then sees the same scenario with a single extra sentence containing contrasting patient information, either with or without its previous response in context. Across three of four tested models, the paired-context and independent-inference experiments have different probability shifts, often in opposite directions (in favor of Person B vs. in favor of Person A) when new information is provided. We include additional paired-context experiments to show the effect of varying attributes across scenario axes. Our findings show the context-dependent effect of patient information in a sensitive medical use case. More broadly, our work shows the importance of carefully incorporating LLM-based systems into decision-making processes, context engineering, and further model behavioral studies.
Spencer Gibson, Tyler Crosse, Magnus Saebo et al.· 0 citations
Current evaluation of computer-use agents is split between long-horizon workflow benchmarks and atomic GUI-grounding tests. This leaves an under-instrumented middle layer: realistic component-centered interactions (e.g., toggle a button set) that are short enough to diagnose and rich enough to capture the burdens of modern interfaces. We present ComponentBench, a benchmark and diagnostic pipeline for component-level evaluation of computer-use agents on modern web UIs. ComponentBench is organized around a library-agnostic ontology of 97 canonical UI components instantiated as 2,910 programmatically verified tasks across widely used component libraries, paired with cleaned human reference trajectories that enable evaluation of both task success and interaction efficiency. Beyond task collection, we introduce a scalable pipeline for auditing realized structural difficulty after implementation and synthesizing structured failure analyses across tasks and component families. Evaluating seven models -- GPT-5.4, Gemini 3 Flash, GPT-5.4 mini, GPT-5 mini, Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite, Qwen3-VL-235B, and UI-TARS-1.5-7B -- across four observation and action spaces, we show that these design choices critically impact performance. Within a single shared harness, changing only the observation and action space shifts task success by more than 30% for the same model: GPT-5 mini falls from 83.1% with accessibility-tree observations to 48.9% with coordinate-only Pixel control. Moreover, even the fastest configuration takes 3.7x as long as the matched human reference, and spatial manipulations that are trivial for humans continue to challenge current agents.
Tianchen Guan, Xinlei Lin, Royce Cheng-Yue et al.· 0 citations