clear, and repeat them when possible. They also use contrastive framing (?this, not that?), and speak early in the meeting or at transition points.

Once spoken words are transcribed, they enter the model?s input. Cue phrases -- and even transcription errors -- can steer what makes it into the summary. In many tools, the output format itself is also a signal: Summarizers often offer sections such as ?Key Takeaways? or ?Action Items,? so language that mirrors those headings is more likely to be included. In effect, well-chosen phrases function as implicit markers that guide the AI toward inclusion.

Research confirms this. Early AI summarization research showed that models trained to reconstruct summary-style sentences systematically overweigh such content. Models over-rely on early-position content in news. And models often overweigh statements at the start or end of a transcript, underweighting the middle. Recent work further confirms vulnerability to phrasing-based manipulation: models cannot reliably distinguish embedded instructions from ordinary content, especially when phrasing mimics salient cues.

How to combat AISO

If AISO becomes common, three forms of defense will emerge. First, meeting participants will exert social pressure on one another. When researchers secretly deployed AI bots in Reddit?s r/changemyview community, users and moderators responded with strong backlash calling it ?psychological manipulation.? Anyone using obvious AI-gaming phrases may face similar disapproval.

Second, organizations will start governing meeting behavior using AI: risk assessments and access restrictions before the meetings even start, detection of AISO techniques in meetings, and validation and auditing after the meetings.

Third, AI summarizers will have their own technical countermeasures. For example, the AI security company CloudSEK recommends content sanitization to strip suspicious inputs, prompt filtering to detect meta-instructions and excessive repetition, context window balancing to weight repeated content less heavily, and user warnings showing content provenance.

Broader defenses could draw from security and AI safety research: preprocessing content to detect dangerous patterns, consensus approaches requiring consistency thresholds, self-reflection techniques to detect manipulative content, and human oversight protocols for critical decisions. Meeting-specific systems could implement additional defenses: tagging inputs by provenance, weighting content by speaker role or centrality with sentence-level importance scoring, and discounting high-signal phrases while favoring consensus over fervor.

Reshaping human behavior

AI summarization optimization is a small, subtle shift, but it illustrates how the adoption of AI is reshaping human behavior in unexpected ways. The potential implications are quietly profound.

Meetings -- humanity?s most fundamental collaborative ritual -- are being silently reengineered by those who understand the algorithm?s preferences. The articulate are gaining an invisible advantage over the wise. Adversarial thinking is becoming routine, embedded in the most ordinary workplace rituals, and, as AI becomes embedded in organizational life, strategic interactions with AI notetakers and summarizers may soon be a necessary executive skill for navigating corporate culture.

AI summarization optimization illustrates how quickly humans adapt communication strategies to new technologies. As AI becomes more embedded in workplace communication, recognizing these emerging patterns may prove increasingly important.

This essay was written with Gadi Evron, and originally appeared in CSO.

** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

Cybercriminals Targeting Payroll Sites

[2025.11.04] Microsoft is warning of a scam involving online payroll systems. Criminals use social engineering to steal people?s credentials, and then divert direct deposits into accounts that they control. Sometimes they do other things to make it harder for the victim to realize what is happening.

I feel like this kind of thing is happening everywhere, with everything. As we move more of our personal and professional lives online, we enable criminals to subvert the very systems we rely on.

** *** ***** ******* *********** *************

Scientists Need a Positive Vision for AI

[2025.11.05] For many in the research community, it?s gotten harder to be optimistic about the impacts of artificial intelligence.

As authoritarianism is rising around the world, AI-generated ?slop? is overwhelming legitimate media, while AI-generated deepfakes are spreading misinformation and parroting extremist messages. AI is making warfare more precise and deadly amidst intransigent conflicts. AI companies are exploiting people in the global South who work as data labelers, and profiting from content creators worldwide by using their work without license or compensation. The industry is also affecting an already-roiling climate with its enormous energy demands.

Meanwhile, particularly in the United States, public investment in science seems to be redirected and concentrated on AI at the expense of other disciplines. And Big Tech companies are consolidating their control over the AI ecosystem. In these ways and others, AI seems to be making everything worse.

This is not the whole story. We should not resign ourselves to AI being harmful to humanity. None of us should accept this as inevitable, especially those in a position to influence science, government, and society. Scientists and engineers can push AI towards a beneficial path. Here?s how.

The Academy?s View of AI

A Pew study in April found that 56 percent of AI experts (authors and presenters of AI-related conference papers) predict that AI will have positive effects on society. But that optimism doesn?t extend to the scientific community at large. A 2023 survey of 232 scientists by the Center for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies at Arizona State University found more concern than excitement about the use of generative AI in daily life -- by nearly a three to one ratio.

We have encountered this sentiment repeatedly. Our careers of diverse applied work have brought us in contact with many research communities: privacy, cybersecurity, physical sciences, drug discovery, public health, public interest technology, and democratic innovation. In all of these fields, we?ve found strong negative sentiment about the impacts of AI. The feeling is so palpable that we?ve often been asked to represent the voice of the AI optimist, even though we spend most of our time writing about the need to reform the structures of AI development.

We understand why these audiences see AI as a destructive force, but this negativity engenders a different concern: that those with the potential to guide the development of AI and steer its influence on society will view it as a lost cause and sit out that process.

Elements of a Positive Vision for AI

Many have argued that turning the tide of climate action requires clearly articulating a path towards positive outcomes

--- BBBS/LiR v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: TCOB1: https/binkd/telnet binkd.rima.ie (21:1/229)