arXiv subjects

Amin Oueslati

Publications and source records attributed to Amin Oueslati.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Regulating AI Agents

AI agents -- systems that can independently take actions to pursue complex goals with only limited human oversight -- have entered the mainstream. These systems are now being widely used to produce software, conduct business activities, and automate everyday personal tasks. While AI agents implicate many areas of law, ranging from agency law and contracts to tort liability and labor law, they present particularly pressing questions for the most globally consequential AI regulation: the European Union's AI Act. Promulgated prior to the development and widespread use of AI agents, the EU AI Act faces significant obstacles in confronting the governance challenges arising from this transformative technology, such as performance failures in autonomous task execution, the risk of misuse of agents by malicious actors, and unequal access to the economic opportunities afforded by AI agents. We systematically analyze the EU AI Act's response to these challenges, focusing on both the substantive provisions of the regulation and, crucially, the institutional frameworks that aim to support its implementation. Our analysis of the Act's allocation of monitoring and enforcement responsibilities, reliance on industry self-regulation, and level of government resourcing illustrates how a regulatory framework designed for conventional AI systems can be ill-suited to AI agents. Taken together, our findings suggest that policymakers in the EU and beyond will need to change course, and soon, if they are to effectively govern the next generation of AI technology.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Open Problems in Frontier AI Risk Management

Frontier AI both amplifies existing risks and introduces qualitatively novel challenges. Not only is there a notable lack of stable scientific consensus resulting from the rapid pace of technological change, but emerging frontier AI safety practices are often misaligned with, or may undermine, established risk management frameworks. To address these challenges, we systematically surface open problems in frontier AI risk management. Adopting a problem-oriented approach, we examine each stage of the risk management process - risk planning, identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation - through a structured review of the literature, identifying unresolved challenges and the actors best positioned to address them. Recognising that different types of open problems call for different responses, we classify open problems according to whether they reflect (a) a lack of scientific or technical consensus, (b) misalignment with, or challenges to, established risk management frameworks, or (c) shortcomings in implementation despite apparent consensus and alignment. By mapping these open problems and identifying the actors best positioned to address them - including developers, deployers, regulators, standards bodies, researchers, and third-party evaluators - this work aims to clarify where progress is needed to enable robust and meaningful consensus on frontier AI risk management.The paper does not propose specific solutions; instead, it provides a problem-oriented, agenda-setting reference document, complemented by a living online repository, intended to support coordination, reduce duplication, and guide future research and governance efforts.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Beware of GeeksBearing Gifts: Building True EU Frontier AI Sovereignty

Frontier artificial intelligence is reshaping all aspects of society, from economic output or military capability to democratic institutions. The EU is entering this transformation from a position of structural dependence: frontier models originate almost exclusively from the United States or China, the US holds approximately sixteen times the EU's AI supercomputing capacity, and only 15% of global hyperscale data centre capacity resides within EU borders. Although the European Commission has accelerated its policy response, existing initiatives remain fragmented and lack a cohesive vision for securing strategic autonomy across the full frontier AI value chain. Here we propose a unified framework connecting five sovereignty pillars (economic competitiveness, resilience, security and defence, European values, and foreign relations) to a decomposition of the frontier AI stack comprising five layers, 26 components, and 29 sub-components. This framework allows the identification of critical gaps, redundancies, and inter-pillar trade-offs that current EU policy leaves implicit. Our analysis of the AI Gigafactory Initiative illustrates how a sovereignty-centred lens reveals conflicts that narrowly economic framings obscure. Moreover, this framework offers policymakers a structured basis for designing, evaluating, and prioritising frontier AI interventions across multiple dimensions of European strategic autonomy across the 92 initiatives from four major Commission communications we. identify, and beyond.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Relational Archetypes: A Comparative Analysis of AV-Human and Agent-Human Interactions

Over the last couple of years, AI Agents have gained significant traction due to substantial progress in the capabilities of underlying General Purpose AI (GPAI) models, enhanced scaffolding techniques, and the promise to drive societal transformation. Companies, researchers, and policy makers have started to consider the different effects that AI agents may have across different dimensions of our lives. However, the literature exploring the broader effects of human-agent interactions is still underdeveloped. In this paper, we review the problem of traffic modulation by autonomous vehicles (AVs) in mixed traffic flows and extrapolate the learnings to the different modes of interaction between humans and AVs to the pair humans-AI agents. In doing so, we propose a preliminary taxonomy of relational archetypes based on literature on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and AV-human interaction and tentatively explore how the resulting framework may lead to new questions regarding human-agent interactions. Our effort is aimed at strengthening existing bridges between these two research communities, which share similar traits: autonomy, fast adoption, high impact, and great potential for economic transformation. Building on previous analogies between AI Agents and AVs (e.g., regarding autonomy levels), we anticipate this paper to spark scholarly debate on the different types of impact that agents may have on our societies, while inviting other researchers to expand the scope of their comparative analysis regarding AI Agents.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Who Should Run Advanced AI Evaluations -- AISIs?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety Institutes and governments worldwide are deciding whether they evaluate advanced AI themselves, support a private evaluation ecosystem or do both. Evaluation regimes have been established in a wide range of industry contexts to monitor and evaluate firms' compliance with regulation. Evaluation is a necessary governance tool to understand and manage the risks of a technology. This paper draws from nine such regimes to inform (i) who should evaluate which parts of advanced AI; and (ii) how much capacity public bodies may need to evaluate advanced AI effectively. First, the effective responsibility distribution between public and private evaluators depends heavily on specific industry and evaluation conditions. On the basis of advanced AI's risk profile, the sensitivity of information involved in the evaluation process, and the high costs of verifying safety and benefit claims of AI Labs, we recommend that public bodies become directly involved in safety critical, especially gray- and white-box, AI model evaluations. Governance and security audits, which are well-established in other industry contexts, as well as black-box model evaluations, may be more efficiently provided by a private market of evaluators and auditors under public oversight. Secondly, to effectively fulfil their role in advanced AI audits, public bodies need extensive access to models and facilities. AISI's capacity should scale with the industry's risk level, size and market concentration, potentially requiring 100s of employees for evaluations in large jurisdictions like the EU or US, like in nuclear safety and life sciences.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Lost in Moderation: How Commercial Content Moderation APIs Over- and Under-Moderate Group-Targeted Hate Speech and Linguistic Variations

Commercial content moderation APIs are marketed as scalable solutions to combat online hate speech. However, the reliance on these APIs risks both silencing legitimate speech, called over-moderation, and failing to protect online platforms from harmful speech, known as under-moderation. To assess such risks, this paper introduces a framework for auditing black-box NLP systems. Using the framework, we systematically evaluate five widely used commercial content moderation APIs. Analyzing five million queries based on four datasets, we find that APIs frequently rely on group identity terms, such as ``black'', to predict hate speech. While OpenAI's and Amazon's services perform slightly better, all providers under-moderate implicit hate speech, which uses codified messages, especially against LGBTQIA+ individuals. Simultaneously, they over-moderate counter-speech, reclaimed slurs and content related to Black, LGBTQIA+, Jewish, and Muslim people. We recommend that API providers offer better guidance on API implementation and threshold setting and more transparency on their APIs' limitations. Warning: This paper contains offensive and hateful terms and concepts. We have chosen to reproduce these terms for reasons of transparency.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Watching the Watchers: A Comparative Fairness Audit of Cloud-based Content Moderation Services

Online platforms face the challenge of moderating an ever-increasing volume of content, including harmful hate speech. In the absence of clear legal definitions and a lack of transparency regarding the role of algorithms in shaping decisions on content moderation, there is a critical need for external accountability. Our study contributes to filling this gap by systematically evaluating four leading cloud-based content moderation services through a third-party audit, highlighting issues such as biases against minorities and vulnerable groups that may arise through over-reliance on these services. Using a black-box audit approach and four benchmark data sets, we measure performance in explicit and implicit hate speech detection as well as counterfactual fairness through perturbation sensitivity analysis and present disparities in performance for certain target identity groups and data sets. Our analysis reveals that all services had difficulties detecting implicit hate speech, which relies on more subtle and codified messages. Moreover, our results point to the need to remove group-specific bias. It seems that biases towards some groups, such as Women, have been mostly rectified, while biases towards other groups, such as LGBTQ+ and PoC remain.

cs.CY↗