arXiv subjects

Katherine Elkins

Publications and source records attributed to Katherine Elkins.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The AI Fiction Paradox

AI development has a fiction dependency problem. Developers have treated large corpora of modern books, including fiction, as valuable enough to accept substantial cost and legal risk, yet current models still struggle to generate compelling long-form fiction. I term this the "AI-Fiction Paradox," and it is particularly startling because training data strongly shapes model output. This paper offers a theoretically precise account of why fiction resists AI generation by identifying three distinct challenges for current systems. First, fiction depends on what I call narrative causation, a form of plot logic where events must feel both surprising in the moment and retrospectively inevitable. Standard autoregressive generation commits to prose sequentially, creating a practical obstacle to coordinating local surprise with retrospective inevitability across a long narrative. Second, I identify an informational revaluation challenge: fiction repeatedly requires the significance of earlier details to be reinterpreted in light of later developments, a form of long-range reasoning that current systems perform unreliably. Third, drawing on over seven years of collaborative research on sentiment arcs, I argue that fiction that moves us requires multi-scale emotional architecture, the orchestration of sentiment at word, sentence, scene, and arc levels simultaneously. Together, these three challenges help explain both why developers have sought large modern book corpora and why compelling long-form fiction remains so difficult to replicate. The analysis also raises urgent questions about what happens when these challenges are overcome. Fiction concentrates unusually powerful cognitive and emotional patterns for modeling human behavior, and mastery of these patterns by AI systems would represent not just a creative achievement but a potent vehicle for human manipulation at scale.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Paradox of Robustness: Decoupling Rule-Based Logic from Affective Noise in High-Stakes Decision-Making

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely documented to be sensitive to minor prompt perturbations and prone to sycophantic alignment, their robustness in consequential, rule-bound decision-making remains under-explored. We uncover a striking "Paradox of Robustness": despite their known lexical brittleness, aligned LLMs exhibit strong robustness to emotional framing effects in rule-bound institutional decision-making. Using a controlled perturbation framework across three high-stakes domains (healthcare, finance, and education), we find a negligible effect size (Cohen's h = 0.003) compared to the substantial biases observed in analogous human contexts (h in [0.3, 0.8]), approximately two orders of magnitude smaller. This invariance persists across eight models with diverse training paradigms, suggesting the mechanisms driving sycophancy and prompt sensitivity do not translate to failures in logical constraint satisfaction. While LLMs may be "brittle" to how a query is formatted, they appear considerably more stable against affective attempts to bias rule-bound decisions. To probe the boundary of this finding, we add two reviewer-driven side studies. A five-scenario immigration extension yields a small but statistically detectable +0.8 percentage point shift that remains within a pre-specified +/-3 percentage point Region of Practical Equivalence (ROPE), while a screening-level adversarial narrative pilot finds no meaningful decision shift under stronger LLM-generated prompts. We release a core benchmark (9 base scenarios x 18 condition variants = 162 unique prompts), code, and data to facilitate replicable evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Syntactic Framing Fragility: An Audit of Robustness in LLM Ethical Decisions

Large language models exhibit systematic negation sensitivity, yet no operational framework exists to measure this vulnerability at deployment scale, especially in high-stakes decisions. We introduce Syntactic Framing Fragility (SFF), a framework for quantifying decision consistency under logically equivalent syntactic transformations. SFF isolates syntactic effects via Logical Polarity Normalization, enabling direct comparison across positive and negative framings while controlling for polarity inversion, and provides the Syntactic Variation Index (SVI) as a robustness metric suitable for CI/CD integration. Auditing 23 models across 14 high-stakes scenarios (39,975 decisions), we establish ground-truth effect sizes for a phenomenon previously characterized only qualitatively and find that open-source models exhibit $2.2x higher fragility than commercial counterparts. Negation-bearing syntax is the dominant failure mode, with some models endorsing actions at 80-97% rates even when asked whether agents not act. These patterns are consistent with negation suppression failure documented in prior work, with chain-of-thought reasoning reducing fragility in some but not all cases. We provide scenario-stratified risk profiles and offer an operational checklist compatible with EU AI Act and NIST RMF requirements. Code, data, and scenarios will be released upon publication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

If open source is to win, it must go public

Open source projects have made incredible progress in producing widely usable machine learning models and systems, but open source alone will face challenges in fully democratizing access to AI. Unlike previous generations of open source software, open source and open weight AI models require substantial resources to activate and maintain -- e.g., data and compute for pre-training, post-training, and deployment -- which only a few actors can currently provide. This position paper argues that open source AI must be complemented by public AI: infrastructure and institutions that ensure models are accessible, sustainable, and governed in the public interest. To achieve the full promise of AI models as prosocial public goods, we need to build public infrastructure to power and deliver open source software and models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the US

As a powerful and rapidly advancing dual-use technology, AI offers both immense benefits and worrisome risks. In response, governing bodies around the world are developing a range of regulatory AI laws and policies. This paper compares three distinct approaches taken by the EU, China and the US. Within the US, we explore AI regulation at both the federal and state level, with a focus on California's pending Senate Bill 1047. Each regulatory system reflects distinct cultural, political and economic perspectives. Each also highlights differing regional perspectives on regulatory risk-benefit tradeoffs, with divergent judgments on the balance between safety versus innovation and cooperation versus competition. Finally, differences between regulatory frameworks reflect contrastive stances in regards to trust in centralized authority versus trust in a more decentralized free market of self-interested stakeholders. Taken together, these varied approaches to AI innovation and regulation influence each other, the broader international community, and the future of AI regulation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI

Applications of Generative AI (Gen AI) are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about the potential risks of the technology, and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source generative AI. Using a three-stage framework for Gen AI development (near, mid and long-term), we analyze the risks and opportunities of open-source generative AI models with similar capabilities to the ones currently available (near to mid-term) and with greater capabilities (long-term). We argue that, overall, the benefits of open-source Gen AI outweigh its risks. As such, we encourage the open sourcing of models, training and evaluation data, and provide a set of recommendations and best practices for managing risks associated with open-source generative AI.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Near to Mid-term Risks and Opportunities of Open-Source Generative AI

In the next few years, applications of Generative AI are expected to revolutionize a number of different areas, ranging from science & medicine to education. The potential for these seismic changes has triggered a lively debate about potential risks and resulted in calls for tighter regulation, in particular from some of the major tech companies who are leading in AI development. This regulation is likely to put at risk the budding field of open-source Generative AI. We argue for the responsible open sourcing of generative AI models in the near and medium term. To set the stage, we first introduce an AI openness taxonomy system and apply it to 40 current large language models. We then outline differential benefits and risks of open versus closed source AI and present potential risk mitigation, ranging from best practices to calls for technical and scientific contributions. We hope that this report will add a much needed missing voice to the current public discourse on near to mid-term AI safety and other societal impact.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Informed AI Regulation: Comparing the Ethical Frameworks of Leading LLM Chatbots Using an Ethics-Based Audit to Assess Moral Reasoning and Normative Values

With the rise of individual and collaborative networks of autonomous agents, AI is deployed in more key reasoning and decision-making roles. For this reason, ethics-based audits play a pivotal role in the rapidly growing fields of AI safety and regulation. This paper undertakes an ethics-based audit to probe the 8 leading commercial and open-source Large Language Models including GPT-4. We assess explicability and trustworthiness by a) establishing how well different models engage in moral reasoning and b) comparing normative values underlying models as ethical frameworks. We employ an experimental, evidence-based approach that challenges the models with ethical dilemmas in order to probe human-AI alignment. The ethical scenarios are designed to require a decision in which the particulars of the situation may or may not necessitate deviating from normative ethical principles. A sophisticated ethical framework was consistently elicited in one model, GPT-4. Nonetheless, troubling findings include underlying normative frameworks with clear bias towards particular cultural norms. Many models also exhibit disturbing authoritarian tendencies. Code is available at https://github.com/jonchun/llm-sota-chatbots-ethics-based-audit.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2019

Can Sentiment Analysis Reveal Structure in a Plotless Novel?

Modernist novels are thought to break with traditional plot structure. In this paper, we test this theory by applying Sentiment Analysis to one of the most famous modernist novels, To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. We first assess Sentiment Analysis in light of the critique that it cannot adequately account for literary language: we use a unique statistical comparison to demonstrate that even simple lexical approaches to Sentiment Analysis are surprisingly effective. We then use the Syuzhet.R package to explore similarities and differences across modeling methods. This comparative approach, when paired with literary close reading, can offer interpretive clues. To our knowledge, we are the first to undertake a hybrid model that fully leverages the strengths of both computational analysis and close reading. This hybrid model raises new questions for the literary critic, such as how to interpret relative versus absolute emotional valence and how to take into account subjective identification. Our finding is that while To the Lighthouse does not replicate a plot centered around a traditional hero, it does reveal an underlying emotional structure distributed between characters - what we term a distributed heroine model. This finding is innovative in the field of modernist and narrative studies and demonstrates that a hybrid method can yield significant discoveries.

cs.CL↗