跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 06:43 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 07:26 — 2026-11-15 07:26(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 06:43最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 06:42(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.11658

Measuring Generative AI Content in Political Campaigns: Evidence of Rising Adoption and Non-Disclosure

Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, Nic Weber

原文摘要

The use of generative AI in political campaigns has drawn public concern and policy attention. Public concerns range from distrust of candidates to skepticism about the authenticity and accuracy of political advertising, including AI-generated images and video. Nearly half of U.S. states have enacted laws that prohibit, or require disclosure of, "materially deceptive" AI-generated content (AIGC) in elections to guard against these concerns. This study measures how candidates and their campaigns produce and circulate AIGC during an election cycle. We develop two measures that estimate not only wether campaigns use AIGC, but how much they produce (magnitude) and in what forms (modality). We apply these measures to a novel dataset of text and images from the campaign websites, X accounts, and emails of 12,977 candidates for U.S. political office from 2023 to 2025. We report three findings. First, detectable AIGC from campaigns increased significantly across modalities over the observation window, and campaigns that use AIGC frequently do not disclose it. Second, incumbents' campaigns produced significantly less AIGC than challengers' campaigns. Third, candidates in states with AIGC disclosure or prohibition laws do not produce measurably less AIGC than candidates in other states. Our method and findings have implications for transparency and trust in elections, and on state laws that regulate AI use in campaigns. Because current state laws largely target mainly "materially deceptive" content, we identify additional policy mechanisms that could increase electoral transparency and improve trust as AIGC becomes more prevalent.

cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06762

U.S. State Guidance on AI in K-12 Education: A Comparative Content and Citation Analysis

Shahan Ali Memon, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, Anukriti Kumar, Lucy Lu Wang, Jevin D. West, Nic Weber

原文摘要

In the years following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, more than half of U.S. states have published formal guidelines around AI usage in K-12 education, creating a record of largely independent state education departments responding to a shared technological disruption. In this work, we analyze publicly available AI usage guidance documents from 35 states in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We compare the guidance in these documents across various dimensions, including pedagogy and instruction, audience, actionability, workforce and career readiness, responsible use and equity, and alignment with state-level demographics and administrative capacity. Finally, we investigate who authored these documents and their cited sources, identifying epistemic foundations underlying their claims. We find that guidance priorities converge on topics anchored in laws such as data privacy and academic integrity, each addressed in 97% of documents. While most documents mention equity of access (86%) and algorithmic bias (97%), fewer discuss specific marginalized populations. Across documents, there is a common framing of urgency around AI integration to prepare students for workforce readiness (86%) and promote loosely-defined personalized learning (86%), which is not matched by specific guidance for capacity-building, actionability, or accountability. State priorities show no relationship to state demographics, capacity, or partisanship. Instead, we identify notable interdependencies between states with shared citations to non-profit organizations like TeachAI and Code.org, with some states reproducing TeachAI's model guidance near-verbatim, and peer citations concentrating on a few early states such as Oregon and Washington. No state includes parents as contributors on these documents, and only five include students.

cs.CY · cs.DL