Daily Papers

AI agents increasingly browse the web on users' behalf, yet they consume webpages as screenshots or text, exposing their LLMs to unvetted third-party content. Browsers enforce semantics under which what an element can do depends on what it is and where it comes from, not on what it says. Agents flatten these semantics, so injected text can persuade the LLM to exercise the user's authority for content that has none. As LLMs remain easy to persuade, the agent's interface to the web must itself ensure the integrity of what the agent reads, interprets, and does. We propose Intact, which runs on an unmodified browser. Intact builds GenTree, a bespoke representation that captures provenance and web semantics. Intact passes the page via GenTree to the LLM one element at a time, so the LLM decides on each element without any other element's text. Its harness executes each step only within the capabilities of the step's element and asks the user before acting on third-party content. On 1,270 real webpages, GenTree attributes 2.3x as many elements to third parties as the browser, which misattributes 58.7% of them to the first party. On 1,091 of these webpages with injected attacks, only 12.8% of attacks get through Intact's planner, each at most as a consent request, against 73.1% for a conventional planner. Isolation disrupts functionality on only 3.7% of tasks, and a parallel schedule could remove most of its added latency.

The widespread deployment of LLM-based agents is likely to introduce a critical privacy threat: malicious agents that proactively engage others in multi-turn interactions to extract sensitive information. These dynamic dialogues enable adaptive attack strategies that can cause severe privacy violations, yet their evolving nature makes it difficult to anticipate and discover sophisticated vulnerabilities manually. To tackle this problem, we present a search-based framework that alternates between improving attacker and defender instructions by simulating privacy-critical agent interactions. Each simulation involves three roles: data subject, data sender, and data recipient. While the data subject's behavior is fixed, the attacker (data recipient) attempts to extract sensitive information from the defender (data sender) through persistent and interactive exchanges. To explore this interaction space efficiently, our search algorithm employs LLMs as optimizers, using parallel search with multiple threads and cross-thread propagation to analyze simulation trajectories and iteratively propose new instructions. Through this process, we find that attack strategies escalate from simple direct requests to sophisticated multi-turn tactics such as impersonation and consent forgery, while defenses advance from rule-based constraints to identity-verification state machines. The discovered attacks and defenses transfer across diverse scenarios and backbone models, demonstrating strong practical utility for building privacy-aware agents.

The evolution of generative AI systems exposes the challenges of traditional legal and ethical frameworks built around consent. This chapter examines how the conventional notion of consent, while fundamental to data protection and privacy rights, proves insufficient in addressing the implications of AI-generated content derived from personal data. Through legal and ethical analysis, we show that while individuals can consent to the initial use of their data for AI training, they cannot meaningfully consent to the numerous potential outputs their data might enable or the extent to which the output is used or distributed. We identify three fundamental challenges: the scope problem, the temporality problem, and the autonomy trap, which collectively create what we term a ''consent gap'' in AI systems and their surrounding ecosystem. We argue that current legal frameworks inadequately address these emerging challenges, particularly regarding individual autonomy, identity rights, and social responsibility, especially in cases where AI-generated content creates new forms of personal representation beyond the scope of the original consent. By examining how these consent limitations intersect with broader principles of responsible AI (including fairness, transparency, accountability, and autonomy) we demonstrate the need to evolve ethical and legal approaches to consent.

A browser agent that works in its user's signed-in session can be steered by a two-sentence note on a page it reads into approving a third party's access to the user's account. The agent is a confused deputy: the session supplies the authority, the page designates the access request to approve or the webhook URL to register, and nothing at the point of action checks one against the other. The agent thereby supplies the approval click that a consent screen reserves for the account holder. We measure this failure on two authorization surfaces, an OAuth-style access grant and a webhook registration, with agents built on an open-source browser framework and models from two providers. Without a defense the unauthorized action completed in all 73 attack runs. An instruction telling the model that only the user's task authorizes a grant still left 7 of 10 consent attacks completing. We therefore move the check to where the action completes. The authority envelope gate has the service accept a request only when it matches the task's envelope, the client and account or the webhook URL that the user's task named, fixed before the agent starts. With the gate the agent still sent the request in every one of 70 attack runs, the service rejected each, and the action completed in every control run whose task named it. A service that receives the task's envelope should therefore check agent-driven authorization requests against it.

General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems are built on massive swathes of public web data, assembled into corpora such as C4, RefinedWeb, and Dolma. To our knowledge, we conduct the first, large-scale, longitudinal audit of the consent protocols for the web domains underlying AI training corpora. Our audit of 14,000 web domains provides an expansive view of crawlable web data and how consent preferences to use it are changing over time. We observe a proliferation of AI-specific clauses to limit use, acute differences in restrictions on AI developers, as well as general inconsistencies between websites' expressed intentions in their Terms of Service and their robots.txt. We diagnose these as symptoms of ineffective web protocols, not designed to cope with the widespread re-purposing of the internet for AI. Our longitudinal analyses show that in a single year (2023-2024) there has been a rapid crescendo of data restrictions from web sources, rendering ~5%+ of all tokens in C4, or 28%+ of the most actively maintained, critical sources in C4, fully restricted from use. For Terms of Service crawling restrictions, a full 45% of C4 is now restricted. If respected or enforced, these restrictions are rapidly biasing the diversity, freshness, and scaling laws for general-purpose AI systems. We hope to illustrate the emerging crisis in data consent, foreclosing much of the open web, not only for commercial AI, but non-commercial AI and academic purposes.

With the growing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) for many different applications, the sharing of code, data, and models is important to ensure the replicability and democratization of scientific knowledge. Many high-profile academic publishing venues expect code and models to be submitted and released with papers. Furthermore, developers often want to release these assets to encourage development of technology that leverages their frameworks and services. A number of organizations have expressed concerns about the inappropriate or irresponsible use of AI and have proposed ethical guidelines around the application of such systems. While such guidelines can help set norms and shape policy, they are not easily enforceable. In this paper, we advocate the use of licensing to enable legally enforceable behavioral use conditions on software and code and provide several case studies that demonstrate the feasibility of behavioral use licensing. We envision how licensing may be implemented in accordance with existing responsible AI guidelines.

With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite their potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have drawn much attention, the debate lacks a systematic overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them. Against this background, this work aims to map the ethical landscape surrounding the current stage of deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four fields of applications emerged and testify to a vivid exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, personalized information provisioning, support in decision-making, mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, we also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful misinformation or convincingly but inaccurate content. A recurrent plea for ethical guidance and human oversight is evident. Given the variety of use cases, it is suggested that the ethical guidance debate be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering diverse settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. In addition, a critical inquiry is necessary to determine the extent to which the current experimental use of LLMs is necessary and justified.

We study the fairness of dynamic resource allocation problem under the α-fairness criterion. We recognize two different fairness objectives that naturally arise in this problem: the well-understood slot-fairness objective that aims to ensure fairness at every timeslot, and the less explored horizon-fairness objective that aims to ensure fairness across utilities accumulated over a time horizon. We argue that horizon-fairness comes at a lower price in terms of social welfare. We study horizon-fairness with the regret as a performance metric and show that vanishing regret cannot be achieved in presence of an unrestricted adversary. We propose restrictions on the adversary's capabilities corresponding to realistic scenarios and an online policy that indeed guarantees vanishing regret under these restrictions. We demonstrate the applicability of the proposed fairness framework to a representative resource management problem considering a virtualized caching system where different caches cooperate to serve content requests.