CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 11Ethics and Social Impacts of AISafety Systems Engineering in AutonomyDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Fully Autonomous AI Agents Should Not be Developed

Open access
Mitchell, Margaret, Ghosh, Avijit, Luccioni, Alexandra Sasha, Pistilli, Giada·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.02649arXiv 2502.02649
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed. In support of this position, we build from prior scientific literature and current product marketing to delineate different AI agent levels and detail the ethical values at play in each, documenting trade-offs in potential benefits and risks. Our analysis reveals that risks to people increase with the autonomy of a system: The more control a user cedes to an AI agent, the more risks to people arise. Particularly concerning are safety risks, which affect human life and impact further values.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.02649

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Restrictions on the development or deployment of certain multi-agent systems could be a useful regulatory tool, but it remains to be seen what such restrictions should entail and whether/where they are feasible.

    “Restrictions on the development or deployment of certain multi-agent systems could be a useful regulatory tool (Anderljung et al., 2023; Mitchell et al., 2025), but it remains to be seen what such restrictions should entail and whether/where they are feasible.”

    From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Mitchell et al., 2025

    The Introduction argues that fully autonomous AI agents should not be developed, supporting restrictions on developing a certain kind of agent. But §5.2 says the paper focuses on single agents and leaves multi-agent systems for future work, so it does not establish the proposed tool specifically for multi-agent systems. The sentence’s uncertainty about feasibility follows the citations and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 104

  1. Adam, M., Wessel, M., and Benlian, A. AI-based chatbots in customer service and their effects on user compliance. Electronic markets, 31(2):427-445, 2021.
  2. Agarwal, A. Autonomous lookahead for early risk tracking (alert): AI-driven predictive simulation for safe and proactive driver intervention. In Applications of Machine Learning 2025, volume 13606, pp. 427-444. SPIE, 2025.
  3. Agrawal, A., Gans, J., and Goldfarb, A. Power and predic- tion: The disruptive economics of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Press, 2022.
  4. Alenezi, M. and Zarour, M. On the relationship between software complexity and security. CoRR, abs/2002.07135, 2020. · arXiv
  5. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P. F., Schulman, J., and Mané, D. Concrete problems in AI safety. CoRR, abs/1606.06565, 2016. · arXiv
  6. Anderson, M. and Anderson, S. L. (eds.). Machine Ethics. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011.
  7. Anscombe, G. E. M. Intention. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957. Anthropic. Claude 3.5 and computer use, 2024. URL https://www.anthropic.com/news/3-5-models-and- computer-use.
  8. Bagdasarian, E., Yi, R., Ghalebikesabi, S., Kairouz, P., Gruteser, M., Oh, S., Balle, B., and Ramage, D. Airgapa- gent: Protecting privacy-conscious conversational agents. CCS '24: Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Con- ference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024.
  9. Bai, H., Zhou, Y., Cemri, M., Pan, J., Suhr, A., Levine, S., and Kumar, A. Digirl: Training in-the-wild device-control agents with autonomous reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11896, 2024. · arXiv
  10. Bainbridge, L. Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19(6): 775-779, 1983.
  11. Barman, S., Pal, U., Sarfaraj, M., Biswas, B., Mahata, A., and Mandal, P. A complete literature review on financial fraud detection applying data mining tech- niques. International Journal of Trust Management in Computing and Communications, 3:336, 01 2016. doi: 10.1504/IJTMCC.2016.084561. · DOI
  12. Bender & Gebru, E. M., Timnit, McMillan-Major, A., and Shmitchell, S. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pp. 610-623, 2021.
  13. Bi, N. and Huang, J. Y.-C. I create, therefore i agree: Exploring the effect of AI anthropomorphism on human decision-making. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW '23 Companion, pp. 241-244, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.
  14. Blanchard, J. and Mcnincth, G. The effects of anthropo- morphism on word learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2):105-110, 1984.
  15. Bloch, E., Conn, A., Garcia, D., Gill, A., Llorens, A., Noorma, M., and Roff, H. Ethical and technical challenges in the development, use, and governance of autonomous weapons systems. Technical report, IEEE Standards Association, 2020.
  16. Boutilier, C., Dean, T., and Hanks, S. Decision-theoretic plan- ning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11:1-94, 1999.
  17. Box, G. E. P. Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345):791-799, 1974.
  18. Bratman, M. E. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
  19. Brohan, A., Brown, N., Carbajal, J., Chebotar, Y., Dabis, J., Finn, C., Gopalakrishnan, K., Hausman, K., Herzog, A., Hsu, J., Ibarz, J., Ichter, B., Irpan, A., Jackson, T., Jesmonth, S., Joshi, N., Julian, R., Kalashnikov, D., Kuang, Y., Leal, I., Lee, K.-H., Levine, S., Lu, Y., Malla, U., Manjunath, D., Mordatch, I., Nachum, O., Parada, C., Peralta, J., Perez, E., Pertsch, K., Quiambao, J., Rao, K., Ryoo, M. S., Salazar, G., Sanketi, P. R., Sayed, K., Singh, J., Sontakke, S., Stone, A., Tan, C., Tran, H., Vanhoucke, V., Vega, S., Vuong, Q. H., Xia, F., Xiao, T., Xu, P., Xu, S., Yu, T., and Zitkovich, B. RT-1: Robotics Transformer for Real-World Control at Scale. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Daegu, Republic of Korea, July 2023. doi: 10.15607/RSS.2023.XIX.025. · DOI
  20. Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., and De Schutter, B. A comprehen- sive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 38(2):156-172, 2008.
  21. Castelfranchi, C. Guarantees for autonomy in cognitive agent architecture. In Wooldridge, M. J. and Jennings, N. R. (eds.), Intelligent Agents, pp. 56-70, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  22. Chan, A., Salganik, R., Markelius, A., Pang, C., Rajkumar, N., Krasheninnikov, D., Langosco, L., He, Z., Duan, Y., Carroll, M., Lin, M., Mayhew, A., Collins, K., Molamohammadi, M., Burden, J., Zhao, W., Rismani, S., Voudouris, K., Bhatt, U., Weller, A., Krueger, D., and Maharaj, T. Harms from increasingly agentic algorithmic systems. In 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Account- ability and Transparency, FAccT '23, pp. 651-666. ACM, June 2023. doi: 10.1145/3593013.3594033. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Cihon, P. Chilling autonomy: Policy enforcement for human oversight of AI agents. In 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, Workshop on Generative AI and Law, 2024.
  24. Cross, J. L., Choma, M. A., and Onofrey, J. A. Bias in medical AI: Implications for clinical decision-making. PLOS Digital Health, 3(11), 2024.
  25. Cui, C., Ma, Y., Cao, X., Ye, W., Zhou, Y., Liang, K., Chen, J., Lu, J., Yang, Z., Liao, K.-D., Gao, T., Li, E., Tang, K., Cao, Z., Zhou, T., Liu, A., Yan, X., Mei, S., Cao, J., Wang, Z., and Zheng, C. A survey on multimodal large language models for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) Workshops, pp. 958-979, January 2024a.
  26. Cui, Y., Huang, S., Zhong, J., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Sun, C., Li, B., Wang, X., and Khajepour, A. Drivellm: Charting the path toward full autonomous driving with large language models. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 9(1): 1450-1464, 2024b.
  27. Davidson, D. Actions, reasons, and causes. The Journal of Philosophy, 60(23):685-700, 1963.
  28. Deng, X., Gu, Y., Zheng, B., Chen, S., Stevens, S., Wang, B., Sun, H., and Su, Y. Mind2web: towards a generalist agent for the web. In Proceedings of the 37th International Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '23, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2023.
  29. Dorion, K. A learner's tactic: How secondary students' anthropomorphic language may support learning of abstract science concepts. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 2011.
  30. Du, Y., Li, S., Torralba, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Mordatch, I. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2024.
  31. Epley, N., Waytz, A., and Cacioppo, J. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114:864-886, 10 2007.
  32. Fard, M. M. and Pineau, J. Non-deterministic policies in markovian decision processes. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 40:1-24, 2011.
  33. Frankfurt, H. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1):5-20, 1971.
  34. Gacek, C., Abd-Allah, A., Clark, B., and Boehm, B. On the definition of software system architecture. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Architectures for Software Systems, pp. 85-94. Seattle, Wa, 1995.
  35. Gaeta, P. Who acts when autonomous weapons strike? Journal of International Criminal Justice, 21(5):1033-1054, 2023. URL https: //academic.oup.com/jicj/article/21/5/1033/7591635.
  36. Garry, M., Chan, W. M., Foster, J., and Henkel, L. A. Large language models (llms) and the institutionalization of misinformation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(12): 1078-1088, 2024.
  37. Genesereth, M. R. and Ketchpel, S. P. Software agents. Commun. ACM, 37(7):48-ff., July 1994.
  38. Gerlich, M. AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1):6, 2025.
  39. Ghosh, S., Gautam, S., Venkit, P., and Ghosh, A. Document- ing patterns of exoticism of marginalized populations within text-to-image generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02937, 2025. · arXiv
  40. Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., and Wyatt, J. C. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA), 19(1):121-127, 2012.
  41. Guestrin, C., Venkataraman, S., and Koller, D. Context- specific multiagent coordination and planning with factored mdps. In AAAI/IAAI, pp. 253-259, 2002.
  42. Haidegger, T. Autonomy for surgical robots: Concepts and paradigms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics, 1(2):65-76, 2019.
  43. Haltaufderheide, J. and Ranisch, R. The ethics of chatgpt in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on large language models (llms). NPJ Digital Medicine, 7, 2024.
  44. He, H., Yao, W., Ma, K., Yu, W., Dai, Y., Zhang, H., Lan, Z., and Yu, D. Webvoyager: Building an end-to-end web agent with large multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13919, 2024. · arXiv
  45. He, Y., Wang, E., Rong, Y., Cheng, Z., and Chen, H. Security of ai agents. In 2025 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Responsible AI Engineering (RAIE), pp. 45-52. IEEE, 2025.
  46. Houtti, M., Zhou, M., Terveen, L., and Chancellor, S. Observe, ask, intervene: Designing AI agents for more inclusive meetings. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '25, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery.
  47. Hu, Z., Zhang, Y., Xing, Y., Zhao, Y., Cao, D., and Lv, C. Toward human-centered automated driving: A novel spatiotemporal vision transformer-enabled head tracker. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, 17(4):57-64, 2022.
  48. Huang, W., Abbeel, P., Pathak, D., and Mordatch, I. Language models as zero-shot planners: Extracting actionable knowledge for embodied agents. In Chaudhuri, K., Jegelka, S., Song, L., Szepesvári, C., Niu, G., and Sabato, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Pro- ceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 9118-9147.
  49. PMLR, July 2022.
  50. Keeling, K., McGoldrick, P., and Beatty, S. Avatars as salespeople: Communication style, trust, and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 63(8):793-800, 2010.
  51. Kierans, A., Ghosh, A., Hazan, H., and Dori-Hacohen, S. Quantifying misalignment between agents: Towards a so- ciotechnical understanding of alignment. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Special Track on AI Alignment), pp. 27365-27373, 2025.
  52. Kim, H.-y. and McGill, A. L. AI-induced dehumanization. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 35(3):363-381, 2025.
  53. Kirsh, D. Foundations of AI: the big issues. Artificial intelligence, 47(1-3):3-30, 1991.
  54. Koga, S. Exploring the pitfalls of large language models: Inconsistency and inaccuracy in answering pathology board examination-style questions. medRxiv, 2023.
  55. Li, Z., Sim, C. H., and Hean Low, M. Y. A survey of emergent behavior and its impacts in agent-based systems. In 2006 4th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, pp. 1295-1300, 2006.
  56. Liang, G. and Tong, Q. Llm-powered AI agent systems and their applications in industry. pp. 0463-0471, 05 2025.
  57. Liapis, G. and Vlahavas, I. Multi-agent system for emulating personality traits using deep reinforcement learning †. Applied Sciences (2076-3417), 14(24), 2024.
  58. Lim, S. and Shim, H. No secrets between the two of us: Privacy concerns over using AI agents. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 16, 09 2022.
  59. Littman, M. L. Markov games as a framework for multi- agent reinforcement learning. In Machine learning proceedings 1994, pp. 157-163. Elsevier, 1994.
  60. Liu, B., Mazumder, S., Robertson, E., and Grigsby, S. AI autonomy: Self-initiated open-world continual learning and adaptation. AI Magazine, 44(2):185-199, 2023.
  61. Longpre, S., Storm, M., and Shah, R. Lethal autonomous weapons systems & artificial intelligence. Science Policy Review, 2022. URL https://sciencepolicyreview.org/wp- content/uploads/securepdfs/2022/08/MITSPR-v3- 191618003019.pdf.
  62. Luccioni, A. S., Akiki, C., Mitchell, M., and Jernite, Y. Stable bias: Analyzing societal representations in diffusion models. NeurIPS 2023, 2023.
  63. Luccioni, S., Jernite, Y., and Strubell, E. Power hungry processing: Watts driving the cost of AI deployment? In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 85-99, 2024.
  64. Maes, P. Agents that reduce work and information overload. Commun. ACM, 37(7):30-40, July 1994.
  65. Michel, S., Kaur, S., Gillespie, S. E., Gleason, J., Wilson, C., and Ghosh, A. "it's not a representation of me": Examin- ing accent bias and digital exclusion in synthetic AI voice services. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '25, pp. 228-245, New York, NY, USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. Microsoft. Using azure AI agent service with autogen / semantic kernel to build a multi-agent solution, January 2025a. URL https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/ blog/educatordeveloperblog/using-azure-ai-agent- service-with-autogen--semantic-kernel-to-build-a- multi-agen/4363121.
  66. Mohri, M., Rostamizadeh, A., and Talwalkar, A. Founda- tions of Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2nd edition, 2018.
  67. Morahan-Martin, J. and Schumacher, P. Loneliness and social uses of the internet. Computers in human behavior, 19(6):659-671, 2003.
  68. Morris, M. R., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Fiedel, N., Warkentin, T., Dafoe, A., Faust, A., Farabet, C., and Legg, S. Position: levels of agi for operationalizing progress on the path to agi. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
  69. Müller, M., Müller, T., Ashtari Talkhestani, B., Marks, P., Jazdi, N., and Weyrich, M. Industrial autonomous systems: a survey on definitions, characteristics and abilities. at-Automatisierungstechnik, 69(1):3-13, 2021.
  70. Myakala, P. K. Beyond accuracy: A multi-faceted evaluation framework for real-world AI agents. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development, 7 (6), December 2024.
  71. Nass, C., Steuer, J., and Tauber, E. R. Computers are social actors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '94, pp. 72-78, New York, NY, USA, 1994. Association for Computing Machinery.
  72. Nwana, H. S. and Ndumu, D. T. A perspective on software agents research. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 14 (2):125-142, 1999.
  73. O'Donnell, J. We need to start wrestling with the ethics of AI agents. MIT Tech Review, 2024.
  74. O'Day, E. B. and Heimberg, R. G. Social media use, social anxiety, and loneliness: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 3:100070, 2021.
  75. Pollack, M. E. The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence, 57 (1):43-68, 1992.
  76. Pollio, V. The Ten Books on Architecture. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 1914. URL https: //www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20239. Originally written in the 1st century BCE. Available via Project Gutenberg.
  77. Pollock, J. L. Planning agents. In Foundations of rational agency, pp. 53-79. Springer, 1999.
  78. Quiñonero Candela, J., Sugiyama, M., Schwaighofer, A., and Lawrence, N. D. (eds.). Dataset Shift in Machine Learning. Neural Information Processing. MIT Press, 2022.
  79. Reeves, B. and Nass, C. I. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996.
  80. Rudinger, R., Naradowsky, J., Leonard, B., and Van Durme, B. Gender bias in coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  81. Russell, S. and Norvig, P. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (4th Edition). Pearson, 2020.
  82. Schwarz, E. Autonomous weapons systems, artifi- cial intelligence, and the problem of meaningful human control. The Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence, 5(1):181-198, 2021. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352141179 Autonomous Weapons Systems Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Meaningful Human Control. ServiceNow. Create your first assistive AI agent with the now assist skill kit, February 2025. URL https://www.servicenow.com/community/now-assist- blog/create-your-first-assistive-ai-agent-with-the-now- assist-skill/ba-p/3185439.
  83. Shapiro, A., Kenton, K., of Social Workers, N. A., and Press, N. Professional choices : ethics at work, 1995.
  84. Short, J., Williams, E., and Christie, B. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. John Wiley & Sons, London, 1976.
  85. Sidner, C. L., Bickmore, T., Nooraie, B., Rich, C., Ring, L., Shayganfar, M., and Vardoulakis, L. Creating new technologies for companionable agents to support isolated older adults. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 8(3):1-27, 2018.
  86. Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., Lillicrap, T., Simonyan, K., and Hassabis, D. A general reinforcement learning algorithm that masters chess, shogi, and go through self-play. Science, 362 (6419):1140-1144, 2018.
  87. Simmons-Edler, R., Badman, R. P., Longpre, S., and Rajan, K. Position: Ai-powered autonomous weapons risk geopolitical instability and threaten ai research. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
  88. Sommerville, I. Software Engineering (9th ed.). Addison- Wesley, 2011.
  89. Sun, B., Zhou, Y., and Jiang, H. Empowering users in digital privacy management through interactive dialogue agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Poster, 2025.
  90. Tan, M. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: Independent vs. cooperative agents. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on machine learning, pp. 330-337, 1993.
  91. Tatman, R. Gender and dialect bias in YouTube's automatic captions. In Hovy, D., Spruit, S., Mitchell, M., Bender, E. M., Strube, M., and Wallach, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing, pp. 53-59, Valencia, Spain, April 2017. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/ v1/W17-1606. URL https://aclanthology.org/W17-1606/. · DOI · Paper page
  92. Thayer, R. H. Software system engineering: A tutorial. Computer, 35(4):68-73, 2002.
  93. Valiente, R., Toghi, B., Pedarsani, R., and Fallah, Y. P. Ro- bustness and adaptability of reinforcement learning-based cooperative autonomous driving in mixed-autonomy traffic. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 3:397-410, 2022.
  94. Velleman, J. D. What happens when someone acts? Mind, 101(403):461-481, 1992.
  95. Wang, J., Xu, H., Ye, J., Yan, M., Shen, W., Zhang, J., Huang, F., and Sang, J. Mobile-agent: Autonomous multi-modal mobile device agent with visual perception. ICLR Workshop on LLM Agents, 2024.
  96. Waytz, A., Heafner, J., and Epley, N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52:113-117, 2014.
  97. Wolpert, D. and Macready, W. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1):67-82, 1997.
  98. Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2): 115-152, 1995.
  99. Xu, M. et al. Acceptability of AI assistants for privacy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08554, 2025. · arXiv
  100. Xu, Z., Zhang, Y., Xie, E., Zhao, Z., Guo, Y., Wong, K.-Y. K., Li, Z., and Zhao, H. Drivegpt4: Interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving via large language model. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(10):8186-8193, 2024.
  101. Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., and Cao, Y. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022), Workshop on Foundation Models for Decision Making, 2022.
  102. Yoon, J. H., Strand, F., Baltzer, P. A. T., Conant, E. F., Gilbert, F. J., Lehman, C. D., Morris, E. A., Mullen, L. A., Nishikawa, R. M., Sharma, N., Vejborg, I., Moy, L., and Mann, R. M. Standalone ai for breast cancer detection at screening digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A systematic re- view and meta-analysis. Radiology, 307(5):e222639, 2023. doi: 10.1148/radiol.222639. URL https: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10315526/. PMCID: PMC10315526. Accessed: YYYY-MM-DD. · DOI
  103. Yuan, Q., Meng, Q., Tao, J., Li, G., Fei, J., Lu, B., and Wang, Y. Multi-agent for network security monitoring and warning: A generative AI solution. IEEE Network, 2025.
  104. Zhu, C. An adaptive agent decision model based on deep reinforcement learning and autonomous learning. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 2023.

Authors
Mitchell, M., Ghosh, A., Luccioni, A. S., & Pistilli, G.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.02649
arXiv
2502.02649
OpenAlex
W4407208775
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
autonomous AI agents, AI autonomy, AI ethics, human-AI interaction, user control, safety risk, risk trade-offs, human values

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review