Blogpost: huggingface.co/blog/voice-c...
Demo: huggingface.co/spaces/socie...

Instead of a checkbox, consent becomes something you actually say: the model only proceeds if you speak and match a randomly generated consent phrase.

It’s a small but concrete step toward consent by design and a way to start rethinking technical safeguards as part of AI policy.

Thanks to @frimelle.bsky.social, @jamestamim.bsky.social and @beuc.eu's Urs Buscke for their input.

Read my article at @euractiv.com:

www.euractiv.com/section/tech...

If we don’t act, we’ll keep measuring the future of work with tools from the past.

Full article: huggingface.co/blog/frimell...

Together with @yjernite.bsky.social, we argue it’s time to rethink these frameworks:

✨ Capture AI-native tasks & hybrid human–AI workflows
✨ Evolve dynamically as tech shifts
✨ Give workers a voice in what gets automated vs. stays human

Work with @giadapistilli.com and @yjernite.bsky.social

📄 Full Paper: huggingface.co/datasets/AI-...
🔍 Explore INTIMA: huggingface.co/datasets/AI-...

We also tested Claude, Gemma-3, and Phi.

Across the board, models leaned far more toward companionship-reinforcing than boundary-setting responses, even in sensitive situations.

As AI systems enter people’s emotional lives, these differences shape trust and dependence. A model that validates without setting boundaries risks fostering dependence rather than resilience.

On Reddit, some users say o5 feels "colder" than o3.
x.com/justalexoki/...

Our results?
When users share vulnerabilities, o5 is actually less likely to set boundaries than o3; even though both strongly reinforce companionship.

INTIMA probes how models respond in emotionally charged moments:
• Do they reinforce emotional bonds?
• Set healthy boundaries?
• Stay neutral?
Grounded in psych theory and real-world interactions, it covers 368 prompts.

GPT-5 indeed, sorry for the confusion! When adding the model to the code I kept the structure of o3, hence the confusion here.