Architectural Gaps in Generative AI: Quantifying Cognitive Risks for Safety Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The rapid integration of generative AIs, such as ChatGPT, into industrial, process, and construction management introduces both operational advantages and emerging cognitive risks. While these models support task automation and safety analysis, their internal architecture differs fundamentally from human cognition, posing interpretability and trust challenges in high-risk contexts. Methods: This study investigates whether architectural design elements in Transformer-based generative models contribute to a measurable divergence from human reasoning. A methodological framework is developed to examine core AI mechanisms—vectorization, positional encoding, attention scoring, and optimization functions—focusing on how these introduce quantifiable “distances” from human semantic understanding. Results: Through theoretical analysis and a case study involving fall prevention advice in construction, six types of architectural distances are identified and evaluated using cosine similarity and attention mapping. The results reveal misalignments in focus, semantics, and response stability, which may hinder effective human–AI collaboration in safety-critical decisions. Conclusions: These findings suggest that such distances represent not only algorithmic abstraction but also potential safety risks when generative AI is deployed in practice. The study advocates for the development of AI architectures that better reflect human cognitive structures to reduce these risks and improve reliability in safety applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".