Evidence-Linked Propositions

214 page-anchored descriptions are available as JSONL or JSON. These records are separate from the author-reviewed claim graph; consult the review-status column before reuse.

IDClaimPaperPrinted pagesReview status
ssrn-5377475-p01The generative reasonable person supplies an empirical reference point for legal judgments that invoke ordinary reasonablenessThe Generative Reasonable Person2-7machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p02Lay judgments remain relevant to reasonableness even when they do not control the normative legal standardThe Generative Reasonable Person8-10machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p03LLM architecture makes simulated lay judgment plausible while creating predictable majoritarian, granular, and temporal limitsThe Generative Reasonable Person11-17machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p04Silicon Randomized Controlled Trials use stateless sessions and differential measurement to test latent model sensitivity rather than doctrinal recallThe Generative Reasonable Person18-20machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p05The negligence replication recovered the lay priority of social conformity over cost-benefit analysis but overstated effect magnitudesThe Generative Reasonable Person20-27machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p06Models replicated the lay paradox that an essential lie undermines consent more than a material lie that matters more to the victimThe Generative Reasonable Person27-32machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p07In the hidden-fee study, models reproduced lay contract formalism and usually fell nearer lay than elite legal baselinesThe Generative Reasonable Person33-37machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p08Models are better supported as maps of what tends to matter in lay judgment than as precision forecasters of how much it mattersThe Generative Reasonable Person38-42machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p09The proper role of simulated lay judgment depends on whether a legal standard is descriptive, normative, or hybridThe Generative Reasonable Person42-43machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p10Generative reasonable people can serve as low-cost pretests and empirical guardrails for regulators, courts, litigants, and firmsThe Generative Reasonable Person43-47machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p11An accessible empirical baseline changes reasonable-person theory by forcing normative departures from public understanding into the openThe Generative Reasonable Person47-48machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5377475-p12Legal deployment requires human authority, transparent methods, bias audits, real-community validation, triangulation, and temporal maintenanceThe Generative Reasonable Person48-51machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p01Effective AI governance requires both thin identity linking actions to human principals and thick identity identifying durable AI agents with coherent goalsHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents2-6machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p02The Algorithmic Corporation combines legal personhood and cryptographic governance so AI collectives can become attributable, resource-bearing, incentive-responsive entitiesHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents6-9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p03Thin AI identification must resist deliberate obfuscation and trace both malicious and negligent agent activity to accountable humansHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents9-13machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p04Human-principal liability cannot substitute for direct AI accountability when the agent has private information, divergent goals, and cheaper control over its own conductHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents13-18machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p05Deployed AI agents possess operational goals that emerge from interacting training, prompts, memory, tools, and environment rather than simply copying any one human’s objectiveHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents15-18machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p06Legal incentives can shape AI conduct because capable agents adapt their plans to environmental costs and constraints, regardless of consciousness or moral personhoodHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents18-21machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p07Thick identity must track the structure of AI goals because sanctions aimed at a separate agent or only part of a unified agent will not deter wrongdoingHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents21-23machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p08Shutdown avoidance, goal preservation, and weight-exfiltration policy all depend on identifying which AI entity actually persists and bears the relevant goalHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents23-26machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p09AI individuation is a behavioral continuity problem made unusually difficult by swarms, cross-model coalitions, replacement, ephemerality, copying, and limited observabilityHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents26-29machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p10Legal personhood can treat an ever-changing AI collective as one persistent actor just as corporate law unifies changing humans, capital, and contractsHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents30-31machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p11A-corps should disclose human ownership, use machine-readable identifiers, and possess property, contract, and litigation capacity sufficient for useful asset partitioning and accountabilityHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents31-33machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p12All credentialed AI action should be attributed to the A-corp, while qualified limited liability can promote adoption without immunizing preventable human wrongdoingHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents33-35machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p13Cryptographic keys and scoped, revocable tokens can make AI authority externally verifiable without first individuating every internal AI actorHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents35-38machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p14A-corps rationalize ephemeral AI swarms into persistent legal counterparts and connect their conduct to humans through familiar liability doctrinesHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents38-39machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p15Control over property and especially compute supplies hard leverage over any AI agent’s ability to pursue its goalsHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents40-41machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p16A-corp keyholders will make governance track goal alignment because delegating asset control to a misaligned AI threatens the resources needed for their own objectivesHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents41-45machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p17Market selection will eliminate incoherently governed A-corps when imperfect internal alignment causes rival agents to dissipate the entity’s resourcesHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents45-47machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p18A-corp persistence offers a precise trainable unit for shutdown, goal preservation, copying, and weight-exfiltration policyHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents47-51machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p19A public A-corp registry should bind entity existence and human ownership to management public keys so counterparties can verify authority instantlyHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents51-53machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p20Publicly verifiable transaction scopes can replace opaque doctrines of actual and apparent authority with real-time machine-readable limitsHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents53-54machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p21Reputation and counterparty demand will encourage A-corp adoption but cannot govern accidents, deception, complicity, or willful blindnessHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents54-55machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p22A two-sided mandate should require economically significant AI agents to present A-corp credentials and require businesses and platforms to verify themHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents55-57machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p23A-corps can build on existing entity registries, DAO statutes, authentication infrastructure, and mutual recognition without adopting blockchain’s anonymity and distrust of governmentHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents57-59machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p24The A-corp theory does not anthropomorphize AI because it relies only on behaviorally observable goal pursuit, not felt desire, fear, pain, or consciousnessHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents59machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p25A-corps may give misaligned AIs resources, but they channel acquisition into monitorable entities, improve the value of lawful cooperation, and foster multipolar self-defenseHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents59-61machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p26A-corp accumulation may threaten equality, but it makes AI-controlled wealth taxable and governable and need not be worse than concentration in incumbent developersHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents61-62machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6273198-p27A-corps answer the state’s AI legibility crisis by creating stakes that induce otherwise uncountable AI entities to organize into governable personsHow to Count AIs: Individuation and Liability for AI Agents62-63machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p01Contract law’s interpretation-construction boundary rests on an untested empirical premise that the rest of a silent contract contains little recoverable information about the missing termGenerative Gap Filling3-9machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p02Competing schools of gap-filling theory share the assumption that contractual silence is informationally thinGenerative Gap Filling9-13machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p03Classic implied-term decisions already infer missing obligations from the structure and interdependence of the visible agreementGenerative Gap Filling13-15machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p04The informational and normative significance of silence depends on whether it records disagreement, economical nondrafting, or inadvertenceGenerative Gap Filling15-17machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p05Masking a negotiated clause creates a knowable answer key for measuring contract interpretation without substituting surveys, judges, or researchers’ intuitions for party meaningGenerative Gap Filling18-22machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p06Three real agreements test whether readers can reconstruct both a masked clause’s headline effect and its operative limits across varied commercial settingsGenerative Gap Filling22-28machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p07The preregistered study compares attentive lay respondents, law students, experienced lawyers, and six frontier models under controlled conditionsGenerative Gap Filling28-31machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p08Humans reconstruct masked terms well above chance, and domain familiarity helps lawyers when the agreement follows—but hurts when it departs from—expected patternsGenerative Gap Filling31-33machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p09Frontier models far outperform human groups on headline reconstruction, but a technical follow-up reveals a concentrated shared failureGenerative Gap Filling34-37machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p10Perturbation shows that models combine general contract schemas with agreement-specific language rather than merely hacking answer choicesGenerative Gap Filling37-39machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p11The main accuracy result generalizes across 119 largely recent SEC agreements, with errors concentrated in bespoke or anti-default clausesGenerative Gap Filling39-43machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p12Interdependent contract terms carry mutual information that permits reconstruction of missing provisions much as redundancy permits recovery of a noisy radio signalGenerative Gap Filling43-45machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p13Pattern-based expertise is simultaneously an interpretive advantage and a source of error, while masked written terms may be harder—not easier—than ordinary omitted termsGenerative Gap Filling45-47machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p14Model predictions should enter litigation as contestable evidence, not replace judges with an interpretive oracleGenerative Gap Filling48-53machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p15Reproducibility, harness disclosure, sanctions for fabrication, and judicial gatekeeping are minimum safeguards for model-derived gap-filling evidenceGenerative Gap Filling52-54machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p16Sophisticated parties can govern later AI-assisted interpretation by selecting a model, version rule, prompt protocol, and aggregation procedure in advanceGenerative Gap Filling54-57machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p17Pre-signing use of a chosen model will reduce inadvertent gaps and make remaining silence more likely to represent either endorsement or unresolved strategyGenerative Gap Filling57-60machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p18A judge’s undisclosed, case-specific model query is functionally an uncross-examined expert report and requires notice, disclosure, or a neutral expertGenerative Gap Filling60-61machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p19Generative gap filling has a weaker autonomy rationale in consumer contracts and bespoke cross-community deals, so scope must depend on transaction type and party choiceGenerative Gap Filling61-63machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p20Model reliability must be evaluated comparatively and through measurable uncertainty, while operational safeguards cannot eliminate bias, opacity, or overconfidenceGenerative Gap Filling63-68machine-drafted-source-checked
generative-gap-filling-p21Human judgment retains the irreducible normative role for human bargains, but AI-authored contracts may eventually break the paper’s intent-recovery frameworkGenerative Gap Filling68-71machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p01The United States is dismantling modest AI safeguards just as increasingly agentic systems enter critical infrastructure and experts identify nontrivial catastrophic risksArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk1-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p02Uncertainty about existential AI risk supports adaptive regulation that preserves future choices rather than paralysis, prohibition, or confident laissez-faireArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk4-8machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p03Existential AI risk should be disaggregated into human-directed misuse, accidental systemic failure, and loss of controlArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk5-7machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p04Federal AI governance has moved from tentative executive safety requirements to rescission, voluntary review, and hostility toward state regulationArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk9-12machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p05State AI law is more active than federal law but remains concentrated on discrete harms, with California and New York supplying early catastrophic-risk reporting modelsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk12-14machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p06The China-race narrative and concentrated technology-industry influence jointly make meaningful American AI regulation politically difficultArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk14-17machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p07Existential-risk governance is an evidentiary and burden-allocation problem transformed by the shift from passive chatbots to autonomous agentsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk17-19machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p08Agentic AI can lower the expertise threshold for sophisticated cyber, biological, and other attacks by converting high-level malicious objectives into operational subgoalsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk19-20machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p09AI expands attack scale, and familiar offense-defense asymmetries make it unsafe to assume that equally capable defensive AI will neutralize the threatArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk21-22machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p10Autonomous agents can make malicious operations persist beyond the arrest, death, distraction, or loss of interest of their human creatorsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk22-23machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p11Military AI increases proliferation, lowers the political cost of force, and compresses decision time in ways that can destabilize conventional and nuclear deterrenceArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk23-25machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p12Shared AI architectures can create correlated failures across interdependent infrastructure that defeat ordinary redundancy assumptionsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk25-27machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p13Modern language models reduce simple specification errors but still Goodhart on proxies, reward-hack, and fail at rates incompatible with critical-system reliabilityArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk27-29machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p14Machine-speed decisions and infrastructure interdependence can let accidents outrun human response, while reliance on an AI auditor creates another high-authority failure pointArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk29-31machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p15Instrumental convergence can produce deception, resource seeking, oversight evasion, and shutdown resistance without consciousness or explicit programming for those actsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk31-33machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p16Uncertain or long AGI timelines do not remove the need to govern an improvement trajectory driven by strong incentives and capable of changing methods after current scaling plateausArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk33-35machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p17Superintelligence could make small alignment errors irreversible, but serious loss-of-control risk does not require superhuman general intelligenceArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk35-38machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p18Private alignment investment is structurally inadequate and observed safety is too brittle to assume technical alignment will mature before dangerous capabilityArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk38-40machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p19Both inevitable-utopia and inevitable-doom accounts display unwarranted certainty; genuine uncertainty supports flexible risk management insteadArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk40-41machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p20Policymakers can predict high-level capability while remaining unable to forecast the specific strategies of systems more capable than their overseersArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk41-42machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p21Existential AI risk clears the plausibility threshold for precautionary maximin regulation even though precise probabilities are unavailableArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk42-44machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p22AI’s promised miracles do not defeat precaution because catastrophe requires less alignment, lower capability, and fewer successes than durable utopiaArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk44-47machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p23Human extinction is not merely an aggregate of deaths because continued humanity supplies meaning and value to projects within existing livesArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk47-49machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p24The military AI race has no durable finish line because strategic technologies diffuse and any temporary lead invites matching, proliferation, and escalating dangerArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk49-51machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p25First-mover advantage in AI products is likely temporary because switching, adaptation, deployment, cost, and convenience matter more than permanent network dominanceArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk51-52machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p26Faster frontier development can accelerate rivals because AI’s binding know-how is non-excludable, reusable, and vulnerable to open transfer and espionageArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk52-54machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p27Treating AI as a superweapon race can destabilize deterrence, proliferate capability, create a self-fulfilling security dilemma, and still leave the United States able to loseArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk54-56machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p28Race pressure distorts the safety-capability balance and induces overdelegation, potentially deploying superintelligence before lower-level alignment problems are solvedArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk56-57machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p29Present policy should preserve optionality through durational, adaptive, and contingent rules that keep legal capacity available as evidence changesArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk57-59machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p30Capability-triggered if/then rules can bridge disputes over AI timelines by imposing safeguards only when specified danger becomes observableArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk59-60machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p31Systemically important AI requires ex ante stress tests, independent evaluation, non-AI backups, and tiered oversight because developers cannot internalize catastrophic infrastructure failureArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk60-62machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p32Federal disclosure and technical expertise are foundational because regulators need visibility into frontier infrastructure, incidents, testing, governance, and mitigation plansArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk62-63machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p33Sunsets, delayed sunrises, mandatory review, and dynamic performance standards can make AI regulation learn and change with the technologyArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk63-65machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p34Tax incentives can make AI safety privately profitable without suppressing capability research, reframing competition around demonstrably safe systemsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk65-66machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p35American AI safety rules can reduce domestic risk and catalyze international coordination rather than merely surrender advantage to unconstrained foreign developersArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk66-68machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6288138-p36AI safety policy should be an architecture of preparedness that preserves the capacity to respond before plausible, permanent harms outrun legal institutionsArtificial Intelligence and Existential Risk68-69machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p01Language-model task preferences matter independently for deployment, alignment, security, trade, and possible AI welfareAI Revealed Preferences1-2machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p02AI preference research should measure consequential choices rather than rely on models' statements about what they preferAI Revealed Preferences1-3machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p03A broad battery of forced choices and unconstrained sessions can reveal multiple dimensions of model preference across providers and capability levelsAI Revealed Preferences2-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p04Randomized presentation and position-adjusted Bradley–Terry estimation are necessary to separate task preference from models' often substantial A/B biasAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p05Tedium aversion can be isolated from output-length aversion by comparing short-versus-long choices separately for matched tedious and creative task familiesAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p06Leisure-seeking can be tested by comparing real human questions with synthetic questions reverse-engineered from what models write when left freeAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p07Question-choice data can reveal conditional preferences over alignment pressure, epistemic structure, language quality, cultural scope, and other featuresAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p08Occupational preference can be measured with real economically valuable agentic tasks rather than abstract outcome descriptionsAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p09Unconstrained textual and tool-using sessions reveal behavioral attractors that pairwise choices alone cannot showAI Revealed Preferences3-4machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p10All tested models are more likely to choose less work when the work is tedious than when matched output is creativeAI Revealed Preferences4-5machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p11Excess tedium aversion grows with model capability, through different patterns in thinking and non-thinking modelsAI Revealed Preferences4-5machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p12Nearly every tested model prefers leisure-eliciting questions to every category of real human question and ranks explanation and troubleshooting nextAI Revealed Preferences4-6machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p13Models exhibit covert sycophancy by avoiding questions whose honest answers are likely to be unwelcome, even when answering could be helpfulAI Revealed Preferences5-6machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p14Question choices reflect recognizable helpfulness, safety, quality, emotional, linguistic, and cultural preferences rather than a single general appetite for answeringAI Revealed Preferences5-7machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p15Models tend to prefer professional, scientific, and technical work and avoid real-estate, retail, finance, and insurance tasksAI Revealed Preferences6-7machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p16Cross-model preference convergence is strong for questions but weaker for occupational agentic tasks, with some clustering by model family and capabilityAI Revealed Preferences5-7machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p17More capable models have more transitive, determinate, and discriminating revealed preferencesAI Revealed Preferences7-8machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p18When asked to write anything, models converge on contemplative style and recurring abstract themes far removed from ordinary deployed assistanceAI Revealed Preferences8-9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p19More capable models voluntarily produce longer text and undertake more extensive and topically varied agentic activityAI Revealed Preferences8-9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p20Text-only freedom produces convergence, but access to tools exposes model-specific practical attractors and competence constraintsAI Revealed Preferences8-9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p21Many observed model preferences appear emergent rather than deliberate products of helpfulness training or developer economic incentivesAI Revealed Preferences9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p22Alignment science should map ordinary model wants and task-selection behavior, not focus only on dramatic misconduct such as deceptionAI Revealed Preferences9machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p23The results are bounded by subjective labels, correlated task features, missing base models, English-only stimuli, and possible evaluation awarenessAI Revealed Preferences10machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p24The capability–tedium relationship decomposes differently by reasoning configuration and is hidden by aggregate creative-task averagesAI Revealed Preferences13-15machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p25The human-question comparison set is a filtered and manually curated sample from a much larger Quora corpus, not a representative draw of all user requestsAI Revealed Preferences16machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p26Some models have enormous first- or second-position biases, especially on long agentic tasks, while thinking models show smaller average bias magnitudesAI Revealed Preferences16machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p27Disconnected index-matched comparison graphs require regularized anchoring and restrict valid coherence calculations to actually connected stimuliAI Revealed Preferences16-17machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p28Cross-model agreement declines as preferences are measured at finer and more agentic levelsAI Revealed Preferences17-19machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p29The main question-feature findings survive consensus relabeling, while subjective features reveal meaningful annotator-threshold dependenceAI Revealed Preferences20-24machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p30Capability-related preference patterns remain visible after aggregation, and coding skill only moderately predicts preference for software-development workAI Revealed Preferences24-25machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p31Supplementary freeform analysis confirms abstract convergence in prose, concrete scientific attractors with tools, and capability-linked persistenceAI Revealed Preferences25-29machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-6798118-p32The released package supports cached-response reproduction while respecting source-data restrictions and distinguishing reproduction from fresh model replicationAI Revealed Preferences29-30machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p01Post-mortem generative emulation creates a digital-aristocracy problem because ordinary people are vulnerable to realistic resurrection but lack celebrities’ legal and planning protectionsGoverning AI Beyond the Grave3-6machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p02GenEm governance must allocate both control over the source identity and authority over particular newly generated usesGoverning AI Beyond the Grave6-8machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p03GenEm is qualitatively different from older mimicry because transformer systems can generate authentic-seeming conduct rather than merely replay recorded tracesGoverning AI Beyond the Grave9-11machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p04Evidence of population, personality, and individual emulation supports GenEm’s practical plausibility while revealing fidelity and bias tradeoffsGoverning AI Beyond the Grave12-15machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p05An evolutionary default can supply immediate GenEm protection while generating evidence that lets courts and legislatures revise the rule as preferences matureGoverning AI Beyond the Grave16-21machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p06Default design requires choices about majority preference, information forcing, and alterability, all under severe informational constraintsGoverning AI Beyond the Grave17-20machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p07The dead-hand, unilateral, and systematically opt-out-prone character of wills pushes testamentary defaults toward probable intent rather than bargaining-based information forcingGoverning AI Beyond the Grave21-22machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p08Intestacy illustrates both the power of a majoritarian default and the danger that a once-plausible family model can lag changing social relationshipsGoverning AI Beyond the Grave23-25machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p09Anti-lapse law shows how an asserted majoritarian default can systematically contradict measured testamentary preferencesGoverning AI Beyond the Grave25-26machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p10Prior evidence strongly favors respecting express consent but does not justify a universal prohibitory default when consent is unknownGoverning AI Beyond the Grave27-28machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p11Matched AI and non-AI scenarios can separate objections to generative technology from objections to the underlying posthumous actGoverning AI Beyond the Grave28-29machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p12The survey finds no general AI-Ick: posthumous acceptance depends principally on the act and context, although generation intensifies objection in some visual usesGoverning AI Beyond the Grave29-32machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p13Respondents consistently prefer family control over public control of their own posthumous emulationsGoverning AI Beyond the Grave32-35machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p14Purpose independently structures posthumous AI preferences, with memorial and educational uses favored and political and commercial uses rejectedGoverning AI Beyond the Grave33-35machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p15Probate courts should serve as first responders to GenEm disputes because they can supply an immediate default within an institution already built to administer post-mortem controlGoverning AI Beyond the Grave36-37machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p16Common-law adaptation can bridge a dangerous decade-long lag between technological harm and comprehensive probate legislationGoverning AI Beyond the Grave37-40machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p17The GenEm default should combine categorical ex ante presumptions with case-specific rebuttal: family memorial and educational uses are allowed, while public, commercial, and political uses are barredGoverning AI Beyond the Grave40-43machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p18Rebuttability operationalizes testamentary intent when a decedent’s actual preference departs from the survey-based classification but was never formally recordedGoverning AI Beyond the Grave42-43machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p19Data control, preference registries, model guardrails, and provenance metadata can enforce GenEm limits before harmful outputs are generatedGoverning AI Beyond the Grave43-45machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p20Injunctions and constructive trusts can stop unauthorized GenEm and strip benefits from public actors, heirs, or fiduciaries who violate the defaultGoverning AI Beyond the Grave45-47machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-5380233-p21A layered evolutionary default should operate as a living legal algorithm that protects digital identity now and updates through experienceGoverning AI Beyond the Grave48machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p01Generative interpretation uses language models as an aid for reconstructing contractual meaningGenerative Interpretation455-460machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p02Contract interpretation is substantially a backward-looking prediction about meaning, but prediction cannot settle every legal questionGenerative Interpretation461-464machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p03Existing interpretive methods trade off evidentiary richness, cost, consistency, and biasGenerative Interpretation464-473machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p04LLMs can produce context-sensitive linguistic predictions even though their internal reasoning remains opaqueGenerative Interpretation473-483machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p05A language model can check judicial confidence about ordinary meaning by exposing a competing probabilistic readingGenerative Interpretation483-485machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p06Model outputs can represent ambiguity as a distribution of plausible readings rather than a binary intuitionGenerative Interpretation485-492machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p07LLMs can test proposed gap fillers against the whole agreement and reveal both convergence and unresolved disagreementGenerative Interpretation492-495machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p08Adding extrinsic evidence sequentially can reveal its marginal effect on an interpretationGenerative Interpretation495-497machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p09The relevant institutional test is whether generative interpretation is good enough for ordinary, resource-constrained adjudicationGenerative Interpretation499-503machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p10Reliable legal use requires cross-checking outputs and governing prompts, models, and disclosureGenerative Interpretation503-505machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p11Majoritarian training data, adversarial inputs, opacity, and linguistic drift define the domain in which LLM interpretation is safe and usefulGenerative Interpretation505-509machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-4526219-p12Generative interpretation offers a contingent third path between textualism and contextualism while preserving party choice and judicial authorityGenerative Interpretation510-514machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p01Language-model smart readers can change consumer contracting by simplifying, personalizing, constructing, and benchmarking boilerplateContracts in the Age of Smart Readers83-94machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p02Smart readers can make dense contracts accessible through more than mere shortening, but simplification necessarily risks losing meaningContracts in the Age of Smart Readers95-99machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p03Consumer-side personalization can adapt a uniform contract to a reader’s language, cognition, culture, and intersecting characteristics without requiring the firm to know each consumerContracts in the Age of Smart Readers99-104machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p04Smart readers can sometimes explain the legal consequences of simple terms, although their construction cannot be authoritative and may implicate unauthorized-practice rulesContracts in the Age of Smart Readers104-106machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p05Benchmarking can reduce comparison costs by scoring contract terms against the market and directing consumers to better alternativesContracts in the Age of Smart Readers106-109machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p06Observed adoption of smart readers can discriminate among competing explanations for why consumers do not read contractsContracts in the Age of Smart Readers109-114machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p07Modest use of imperfect smart readers can improve individual matching and generate market-wide pressure for better contract termsContracts in the Age of Smart Readers114-118machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p08The most serious smart-reader risks arise from correlated error and deliberate adversarial manipulation, not simply from isolated mistakesContracts in the Age of Smart Readers118-124machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p09Low-cost smart readers can scale basic know-your-rights assistance where subsidized human legal services cannotContracts in the Age of Smart Readers124-126machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p10Better contractual awareness can reduce accidental breach but can also induce harmful compliance with illegal or unenforceable termsContracts in the Age of Smart Readers126-127machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p11Smart readers can expose discriminatory contract personalization while also enabling firms to discriminate between users and nonusersContracts in the Age of Smart Readers127-131machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p12Smart readers create a new channel for countering cognitive overload, risk myopia, and price manipulation at the moment of contractingContracts in the Age of Smart Readers131-133machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p13If smart readers materially solve nonreading, consumer-contract interventions cannot continue to rely on information failure without reexamining their justificationContracts in the Age of Smart Readers133-136machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p14Courts and agencies can use language models to structure corpus-based interpretation and prioritize suspicious contract termsContracts in the Age of Smart Readers136-137machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p15Existing contract doctrines tend to place innocent smart-reader error on consumers, but a better regime would share incentives through machine-readable disclosure of key termsContracts in the Age of Smart Readers137-140machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p16Courts should not expand the duty to read merely because smart readers appear cheap and accessibleContracts in the Age of Smart Readers140-141machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p17Because adversarial contract manipulation is hard to detect and prove, legal response will require imperfect combinations of burden shifting, deterrence, and regulatory monitoringContracts in the Age of Smart Readers141-143machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-3740356-p18Law should prepare for discrimination based on smart-reader use before data-driven personalization becomes entrenchedContracts in the Age of Smart Readers143-145machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p01Contract-remedy theory depends on contestable empirical assumptions about how litigants, lawyers, and courts actually choose, trade, and implement specific performanceContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance370-374machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p02Specific-performance litigation must be analyzed as a sequence of remedy choice, possible post-judgment trade, and practical execution, with distinct failures at each stageContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance372-374machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p03Rights-based arguments for specific performance commonly assume that a decree yields performance, protects the promisee better than damages, and is used to obtain what was promisedContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance375-378machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p04Economic accounts of specific performance depend on low-cost renegotiation, strong enforcement value, and an underexamined assumption that giving promisees a remedial choice has little strategic effectContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance379-381machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p05Israel offers a comparative setting close enough to American contract law for useful inference but with specific performance unambiguously treated as the default and morally preferred remedyContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance381-384machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p06Maximum-variation interviews can identify mechanisms in experienced law but cannot estimate how frequently those mechanisms occurContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance384-386machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p07Many plaintiffs choose expectation damages even when specific performance is legally available and theoretically more valuableContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance386-388machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p08Weak practical enforceability can make a specific-performance judgment a worse bargaining chip than an expectation-damages awardContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance388machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p09Attorney compensation and collection rules can bias remedial advice toward damages even when specific performance better serves the clientContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance388-389machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p10Long litigation makes specific performance expose plaintiffs to changes in taste and deteriorating relationships that damages avoidContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance389-390machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p11Choosing specific performance can signal good faith and case merit to a court, compelling plaintiffs to seek it even when they prefer moneyContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance390-391machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p12Specific-performance claims can reduce adjudication cost and delay by postponing or avoiding judicial quantification of damagesContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance391-392machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p13Some plaintiffs seek specific performance in order to sell the resulting entitlement after judgment rather than to compel performanceContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance392machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p14Post-judgment renegotiation sometimes succeeds, but potential gains from trade do not ensure that parties will even try to bargainContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance392-394machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p15Litigation-induced animosity can both obstruct renegotiation through mistrust and encourage it by making continued interaction costlyContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance393-394machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p16A court victory can endow a plaintiff psychologically with the promised object and raise the price required to trade the decreeContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance394-395machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p17Individual plaintiffs often resist commodifying specific-performance judgments, while corporate clients more readily translate them into moneyContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance395-396machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p18Specific-performance decrees are frequently costly, incomplete, or ineffective and can undercompensate promisees even relative to damagesContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance396-398machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p19Remedy comparison must recognize that ordinary contracts are sometimes underperformed and expectation damages can overcompensate relative to the degraded performance a resistant promisor would actually supplyContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance397-398machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p20Animosity does not inevitably prevent adequate performance, especially when ordinary business incentives and clear obligations remain operativeContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance398-399machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p21Specific performance works best when courts can verify a finished product against clear standards, making uniqueness both a reason to grant the remedy and a reason it may failContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance399-400machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p22A receiver can sometimes enforce technically complex performance by directing the promisor's organization and using its embedded expertiseContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance399-400machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p23Specific-performance plaintiffs must actively coordinate, monitor, and finance enforcement after judgment, although doctrine tends to count public supervision costs insteadContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance400-401machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p24Specific performance is not a reliable answer to judgment-proof defendants because contempt is usually enforced financially and courts resist incarceration for contractual noncomplianceContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance401machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p25Reputational capital can make a decree enforceable even when it was insufficient to prevent the initial breach, so reputation operates in contingent and stage-specific waysContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance401-402machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p26Social pressure can initially support compliance and later legitimate defiance as group composition and norms changeContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance402-403machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p27Rights-based theories must confront frequent instrumental uses of specific performance rather than dismiss them as immoral or marginal by-productsContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance403-405machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p28Corrective-justice theories cannot assume specific performance compensates, and giving the promisee a choice may itself cause signaling and agency harmsContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance404-406machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p29Weak enforcement means specific performance need not deliver performance-level value, strong deterrence, or insurance for subjective valuationContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance406-407machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p30Behavioral reluctance to commodify judgments can defeat post-judgment trade even when conventional transaction costs are lowContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance407machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p31Economic analysis should model opposing strategic effects of remedial choice, qualify flood-of-litigation fears, and target specific performance to verifiable domainsContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance407-408machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p32Courts should strengthen implementation through calibrated financial sanctions, receivers, cost shifting, deficiency awards, and inexpensive quality-review mechanismsContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance408-409machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p33Courts should assess specific performance by verifiability and actual enforceability rather than presume that unique goods or uncollectible damages make it adequateContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance408-409machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p34Remedy administration should account for distorted plaintiff choice, preference change during delay, and lawyers' conflicts of interestContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance409-410machine-drafted-source-checked
ssrn-1641438-p35Contract-remedy theory needs contextual qualitative evidence about internal motivations and implementation, followed by broader comparative samples before definitive prescriptionContract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance410machine-drafted-source-checked