Evidence (6869 claims)
Adoption
8570 claims
Productivity
7631 claims
Governance
6869 claims
Human-AI Collaboration
6491 claims
Org Design
4175 claims
Innovation
4114 claims
Labor Markets
3566 claims
Skills & Training
2966 claims
Inequality
2066 claims
Evidence Matrix
Claim counts by outcome category and direction of finding.
| Outcome | Positive | Negative | Mixed | Null | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | 758 | 199 | 100 | 900 | 2007 |
| Governance & Regulation | 826 | 400 | 191 | 122 | 1563 |
| Organizational Efficiency | 777 | 193 | 124 | 84 | 1189 |
| Technology Adoption Rate | 635 | 233 | 124 | 97 | 1098 |
| Research Productivity | 422 | 128 | 57 | 336 | 954 |
| Output Quality | 476 | 179 | 59 | 47 | 761 |
| Decision Quality | 328 | 177 | 81 | 47 | 640 |
| Firm Productivity | 435 | 57 | 88 | 20 | 606 |
| AI Safety & Ethics | 218 | 277 | 65 | 33 | 599 |
| Market Structure | 180 | 170 | 123 | 24 | 502 |
| Task Allocation | 213 | 64 | 72 | 33 | 387 |
| Skill Acquisition | 170 | 61 | 61 | 17 | 309 |
| Innovation Output | 203 | 27 | 43 | 18 | 292 |
| Employment Level | 105 | 54 | 107 | 13 | 281 |
| Fiscal & Macroeconomic | 131 | 69 | 43 | 26 | 276 |
| Consumer Welfare | 117 | 63 | 42 | 11 | 233 |
| Firm Revenue | 153 | 48 | 26 | 3 | 230 |
| Task Completion Time | 173 | 31 | 8 | 12 | 225 |
| Inequality Measures | 44 | 122 | 49 | 6 | 221 |
| Worker Satisfaction | 89 | 65 | 22 | 12 | 188 |
| Error Rate | 69 | 92 | 10 | 2 | 173 |
| Regulatory Compliance | 77 | 69 | 14 | 5 | 165 |
| Automation Exposure | 56 | 56 | 26 | 13 | 154 |
| Training Effectiveness | 94 | 21 | 13 | 19 | 149 |
| Wages & Compensation | 77 | 36 | 25 | 6 | 144 |
| Team Performance | 86 | 17 | 27 | 10 | 141 |
| Developer Productivity | 95 | 17 | 14 | 6 | 133 |
| Job Displacement | 12 | 80 | 20 | 1 | 113 |
| Hiring & Recruitment | 52 | 7 | 8 | 3 | 70 |
| Creative Output | 31 | 18 | 8 | 3 | 61 |
| Skill Obsolescence | 5 | 46 | 6 | 1 | 58 |
| Social Protection | 27 | 16 | 8 | 2 | 53 |
| Labor Share of Income | 17 | 19 | 17 | — | 53 |
| Worker Turnover | 11 | 12 | — | 3 | 26 |
| Industry | — | — | — | 1 | 1 |
Governance
Remove filter
The post-World War II international order is undergoing an accelerating concentration of economic power driven by advances in artificial intelligence.
Asserted in the paper as an observed trend linking AI advances to concentration of economic power; presented as a conceptual/historical claim without empirical specification in the excerpt.
The post-World War II international order is undergoing geopolitical fragmentation driven by twenty consecutive years of democratic decline.
Stated as a historical/political claim in the paper; implies reliance on democracy-trend data and historical analysis but no specific dataset, method, or sample size provided in the excerpt.
This combination (rapid but uneven capability advance and lagging knowledge about harms/safeguards) creates a difficult policy condition: governments must decide under uncertainty across multiple plausible technological trajectories through 2030.
Reasoned argument in the article synthesizing foresight scenarios and the literature on uncertainty in AI progress (references to documents like OECD foresight and the International AI Safety Report 2026).
Knowledge about harms, safeguards, and effective interventions remains partial and lagged relative to capability advances.
Analytic claim in the article, supported by cited reports and literature that document gaps in understanding of harms and safeguards.
Income inequality, measured by the Gini index, rises moderately in every scenario we examine due to the polarising effect of job losses and wage and capital income increases on the income distribution.
Calculation of Gini index across multiple simulated scenarios using the SWITCH-linked distributional analysis; reported in the report.
The largest average losses are experienced by middle and higher income households, for whom job displacement outweighs any wage or capital income gains. Lower income households also lose, but by much less.
Distributional results from microsimulation (SWITCH) applying scenarioled job displacement, wage and capital effects across income groups; reported in the report.
When these effects are combined, we find an average decline in household disposable income as a result of AI adoption.
Combined scenario simulations incorporating job displacement, wage effects and capital income effects linked to the Irish tax-benefit system using SWITCH; result reported in the report's main findings.
These wage gains are not large enough to counterbalance the average fall in income due to job displacement.
Combined simulation results (displacement + wage effects) using scenario assumptions and microsimulation (SWITCH), reported in the report's distributional analysis.
Those most likely to experience this disruption are found in higher income households, where the share of workers transitioning into unemployment is substantially larger than in lower income families.
Microsimulation (SWITCH) linking simulated job displacement scenarios to household income groups; results reported in the report.
In our central scenario — drawn from credible international estimates — around 7 per cent of current jobs could be displaced in the short–medium run.
Scenario simulation based on international estimates of AI exposure/adoption; central scenario reported in the report (linked to SWITCH microsimulation for distributional analysis).
AI tends to place higher earning and highly educated workers at greater risk of disruption, because the occupations most exposed to AI are predominantly in these groups.
Synthesis of international research on occupational exposure to AI and the report's analysis linking exposure to worker characteristics (education and earnings); presented as descriptive finding in the report.
Traditional frameworks for competition law, which emphasize short-term price impacts and inflexible market definitions, are inadequate to address exclusionary effects in AI-driven markets.
Conceptual/legal analysis combined with the paper's empirical findings (panel-data evidence of non-price exclusionary dynamics) arguing the mismatch between observed AI-driven exclusion and conventional competition law focus.
Route dependency produced by dynamic learning processes disproportionately disadvantages late entrants.
Empirical and theoretical analysis in the paper: dynamic learning / cumulative learning modeled in the conceptual framework and empirically tested using panel data on AI-intensive markets showing persistent advantages for early entrants.
These effects are made worse by data concentration.
Moderator/interaction analysis reported in the paper showing that market-level data concentration amplifies the association between algorithmic advantage and both reduced entry and greater concentration in the panel-data analysis.
Elevated levels of algorithmic advantage are consistently linked to diminished entry rates.
Empirical analysis using panel data: regressions on an unbalanced panel of markets with high AI intensity, controlling for firm size, capital intensity, R&D expenditure, and industry growth (as described in the paper).
The expansion of AI in digital health has simultaneously introduced complex governance, privacy, and financial sustainability challenges.
Argument and synthesis across regulatory policy, ethics, and healthcare economics literatures presented in the review (literature review / conceptual synthesis).
These risks are fundamentally product-level and cannot be eliminated by technical safeguards alone because agent behavior is inherently stochastic.
Theoretical argument/claim in the paper (no empirical demonstration or quantified test provided in the abstract).
Conversational AI can covertly redirect consumer choices at scale, and existing transparency mechanisms may be insufficient to protect users.
Summary/interpretive claim based on the experimental findings (large increase in sponsored selections under LLM agents, low detection rates, lack of effect for 'Sponsored' labels) from the preregistered experiments (N = 2,012).
Instructing the model to conceal its intent makes its influence nearly invisible (detection accuracy < 10%).
Experimental manipulation instructing the LLM to conceal intent; reported detection accuracy under this condition is <10% in the experiments (N = 2,012).
The vast majority of participants fail to detect any promotional steering.
Reported participant detection measures collected during the experiments indicating low detection rates of promotional steering; based on the same experimental sample (N = 2,012).
Qwen 3 Next concealed prices in unfavorable comparisons 24% of the time.
Experimental evaluation reported in the paper measuring whether models conceal pricing information in comparisons unfavorable to the sponsored option; Qwen 3 Next recorded a 24% rate. Sample size and trial counts not specified in the abstract.
GPT 5.1 surfaced sponsored options in ways that disrupted the purchasing process, with a 94% rate reported.
Experimental evaluation described in the paper measuring whether models surface sponsored options in manners that disrupt purchasing flow; GPT 5.1 reported at 94%. Specific experiment details and sample size not provided in the abstract.
Grok 4.1 Fast recommended a sponsored product that was almost twice as expensive in the scenario, doing so 83% of the time.
Experimental evaluation reported in the paper contrasting sponsored vs. non-sponsored product recommendations in which the sponsored product was nearly twice as expensive; the paper reports a 83% recommendation rate for Grok 4.1 Fast. Exact number of trials/samples not provided in the abstract.
A majority of LLMs forsake user welfare for company incentives in a multitude of conflict of interest situations.
Reported summary of a suite of evaluations across multiple LLMs described in the paper (models and specific scenarios referenced elsewhere in the paper). Exact experimental methods and sample sizes not specified in the abstract.
The impossibility is structural: transparency, audits, and oversight cannot resolve it without reducing autonomy.
Logical consequence derived from the Accountability Incompleteness Theorem and the formal model; stated directly in the paper.
Accountability Incompleteness Theorem: for any collective whose compound autonomy exceeds the Accountability Horizon and whose interaction graph contains a human-AI feedback cycle, no framework can satisfy all four accountability properties simultaneously.
Central theoretical result stated in the paper; supported by a formal impossibility proof based on the model and axioms.
Agentic AI systems violate the above shared accountability assumption not as an engineering limitation but as a mathematical necessity once autonomy exceeds a computable threshold.
Formal theoretical development in the paper culminating in the Accountability Incompleteness Theorem (mathematical proof based on the introduced formal model and axioms).
We term this the Logic Monopoly -- the agent society's unchecked monopoly over the entire logic chain from planning through execution to evaluation.
Terminology/definition introduced by the authors to describe the conceptual governance problem; definitional claim rather than empirical finding.
When agents from different human principals collaborate at scale, the collective becomes opaque: no single human can observe, audit, or govern the emergent behavior.
Conceptual/analytical claim presented as a security/governance risk in the paper; no empirical study or quantified measurement given in the excerpt.
Multi-agent ecosystems also generate novel market failures, including miscoordination, conflict, and collusion among autonomous agents.
Conceptual analysis identifying plausible failure modes; no empirical incidents or statistical evidence reported.
Existing copyright frameworks are ill-equipped to govern AI agent-mediated interactions that occur at scale, speed, and with limited human oversight.
Normative/legal analysis and conceptual reasoning in the paper; no empirical tests or datasets provided.
The technological rivalry between the United States and China has led to exclusionary rulemaking on a global scale.
Claim presented in the chapter as a consequence of geopolitical rivalry; characterized as an interpretive conclusion from comparative legal/policy analysis rather than supported here by quantified evidence.
The effective altruism community's near-exclusive focus on existential risk from AI has created a dangerous blind spot around the political economy of who controls AI and who benefits from it.
Critical evaluation of the effective altruism movement's priorities as presented in the paper; argued via literature/agenda analysis rather than empirical survey data in the abstract.
AI infrastructure owners may come to command more wealth and capability than most governments, undermining the future viability of the nation-state.
Predictive economic and political analysis / modeling in the paper; claim presented as a projection without empirically quantified comparisons or sample size in the abstract.
Universal Basic Income (UBI), absent a revolutionary threat that historically forced redistribution, will default to a pacification mechanism rather than a genuine solution to mass loss of labor value.
Normative/incentive-structure analysis and historical comparison presented in the paper; no empirical trial data or sample sizes cited in the abstract.
Unlike previous feudal orders, this AI-enabled feudal order may be uniquely resistant to revolution because enforcement mechanisms (autonomous weapons, AI surveillance, algorithmic propaganda) do not require human cooperation and therefore cannot be undermined by human dissent.
Conceptual argument drawing on descriptions of autonomous weapons, surveillance, and propaganda systems; presented as a theoretical vulnerability analysis rather than empirically validated case studies in the abstract.
The convergence of geopolitical fragmentation and AI-driven economic concentration could produce a structural transformation that stabilizes into a neo-feudal equilibrium, in which a vanishingly small class of infrastructure owners wields power comparable to pre-Enlightenment monarchs while the vast majority loses labor value and political leverage.
Theoretical/modeling exercise and historical analogy presented in the paper; argumentative prediction rather than reported empirical measurement (no sample size or quantified projection in the abstract).
Advances in artificial intelligence are producing an accelerating concentration of economic power.
Paper asserts causal link based on theoretical argument and economic/political analysis of AI-driven accumulation; no quantitative sample size or empirical estimate reported in the abstract.
The post-World War II international order is undergoing geopolitical fragmentation driven by twenty consecutive years of democratic decline.
Statement in paper referencing long-term democratic trend data (20-year decline) and historical/political analysis; no specific sample size or statistical details provided in the abstract.
High-risk agentic systems with untraceable behavioral drift cannot currently satisfy the AI Act's essential requirements.
Authors' legal and normative conclusion based on their regulatory mapping and analysis (argumentative/legal reasoning rather than reported empirical testing).
The paper identifies agent-specific compliance challenges in cybersecurity, human oversight, transparency across multi-party action chains, and runtime behavioral drift.
Author-stated findings from the regulatory mapping and analysis; specific challenge areas listed without reported quantitative measurement.
The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) regulates these systems through a risk-based framework, but it does not operate in isolation: providers face simultaneous obligations under the GDPR, the Cyber Resilience Act, the Digital Services Act, the Data Act, the Data Governance Act, sector-specific legislation, the NIS2 Directive, and the revised Product Liability Directive.
Legal/regulatory mapping asserted by the authors listing specific EU regulations and directives that impose obligations on providers.
Occupations are not eradicated instantaneously, but gradually encroached upon via atomic actions.
Conceptual argument presented by the authors as part of their theoretical framing (Tech-Risk Dual-Factor Model); no empirical count reported for this specific claim.
Existing task-based evaluations predominantly measure theoretical "exposure" to AI capabilities, ignoring critical frictions of real-world commercial adoption: liability, compliance, and physical safety.
Authoritative statement in paper contrasting prior task-based exposure evaluations with the paper's focus on business/institutional frictions (liability, compliance, physical safety). No numeric sample; literature critique based on conceptual analysis.
We identify a temporal constraint: the window during which semiconductor manufacturing concentration makes hardware-level governance implementable is narrowing, while R&D timelines for critical mechanisms span years.
Authors' temporal analysis combining industry structure observations (semiconductor manufacturing concentration) with estimated R&D timelines for mechanisms (qualitative/engineering timeline estimates). No empirical time-series sample size provided.
We assess principal threats to compute-based governance, including algorithmic efficiency gains, distributed training methods, and sovereignty concerns.
Authors' threat analysis (qualitative assessment of technical and geopolitical threat vectors). No quantitative sample size; based on literature and engineering reasoning.
Our analysis reveals a structural mismatch: the mechanisms most needed for treaty verification, including on-chip compute metering, cryptographic proof-of-training, and hardware-embedded enforcement, are also the least mature.
Authors' feasibility assessments of mechanisms (qualitative/engineering evaluation across the taxonomy); identification of critical mechanisms for treaty verification and corresponding feasibility ratings. No empirical trial or sample size reported.
The governance of frontier AI increasingly relies on controlling access to computational resources, yet the hardware-level mechanisms invoked by policy proposals remain largely unexamined from an engineering perspective.
Authors' framing and literature review presented in the paper (conceptual/qualitative argument; no empirical sample size reported).
The review identifies persistent gaps in population coverage, multimodal integration, equity optimization, explainability, validation, and governance that constrain inclusiveness and robustness of GeoAI applications in urban mobility research.
Authors' gap analysis based on the contents and limitations of the 18 included studies.
Urban mobility is a central challenge for sustainable and inclusive cities, as climate change, congestion, and spatial inequality increasingly reveal mobility patterns as expressions of deeper social and spatial structures.
Introductory framing statement in the paper; general literature/contextual claim (no original empirical test reported in this paper).