Proposals of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions based on increasingly complex and accurate predictive models are becoming ubiquitous across many disciplines. As the complexity of these models grows, transparency and users' understanding often diminish. This suggests that accurate prediction alone is insufficient for making an AI-based solution truly useful. In the development of healthcare systems, this introduces new issues related to accountability and safety. Understanding how and why an AI system makes a recommendation may require complex explanations of its inner workings and reasoning processes. Although research on explainable AI (XAI) has significantly increased in recent years and there is high demand for XAI in medicine, defining what constitutes a good explanation remains ad hoc, and providing adequate explanations continues to be challenging. To fully realize the potential of AI, it is critical to address two fundamental questions about explanations for safety-critical AI applications, such as health-AI: (1) What is an explanation in health-AI? and (2) What are the attributes of a good explanation in health-AI? In this study, we examined published literature and gathered expert opinions through a two-round Delphi study. The research outputs include (1) a definition of what constitutes an explanation in health-AI and (2) a comprehensive list of attributes that characterize a good explanation in health-AI.

Automated content moderation systems have long been used to help reduce the occurrence of violent, hateful, sexual, or otherwise undesired user-generated content online, including in online comment sections and by social media platforms [7, 19, 24]. As content is generated by AI systems, automated content moderation techniques are being applied to the text generated by these systems to filter unwanted content before it is shown to users [21, 22]. However, content moderation is known to suffer from identity-related biases, such that speech by or about marginalized identities is more likely to be incorrectly flagged as inappropriate content [5, 10, 27]. In this paper, we conduct an audit of five content moderation systems to measure identity-related speech suppression, introducing benchmark datasets and definitions to quantify these biases in the context of generative AI systems. Previous assessments of content moderation systems have used benchmark datasets to measure effectiveness and bias. These include datasets composed of user-generated content, such as tweets or internet comments, that have been hand-labeled according to a content moderation rubric [2, 8]. However, most of these datasets are composed of short-form content and do not include the types of text involved in generative AI systems, be they user-generated prompts or system-provided responses. Automated content moderation systems applied in generative AI settings may have unexpected or undesired results, for example flagging PG-rated movie scripts as inappropriate content [21]. As generative AI is increasingly used for creative and expressive text generation from schools to Hollywood, this paper is motivated by this question: whose stories won't be told?

Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation. However, current LLMs are far from reliable: they are prone to generating non-factual information and, more crucially, to contradicting themselves when prompted to reason about relations between entities of the world. These problems are currently addressed with large scale fine-tuning or by delegating reasoning to external tools. In this work, we strive for a middle ground and introduce a loss based on neuro-symbolic reasoning that teaches an LLM to be logically consistent with an external set of facts and rules and improves self-consistency even when the LLM is fine-tuned on a limited set of facts. Our approach also allows to easily combine multiple logical constraints at once in a principled way, delivering LLMs that are more consistent w.r.t. all constraints and improve over several baselines w.r.t. a given constraint. Moreover, our method allows LLMs to extrapolate to unseen but semantically similar factual knowledge, represented in unseen datasets, more systematically.

A new report found the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) guilty of violating its own editorial guidelines over a thousand times in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. According to The Telegraph, the report analyzed four months of BBC output on television, radio, online, podcasts and on social media during the height of the conflict and found a "deeply worrying pattern of bias" against Israel. British lawyer Trevor Asserson and a team of about 20 lawyers and 20 data scientists used artificial intelligence to analyze nine million words from the news outlet, starting the day of the October 7, 2023, terror attack. The researchers allegedly identified 1,553 instances where the BBC violated its own editorial guidelines on impartiality, accuracy, editorial values and public interest. Hundreds attend a protest called by the National Jewish Assembly, The Campaign Against Antisemitsim and the UK Lawyers for Israel at the BBC Broadcasting House on October 16, 2023, in London, England.

The Houthis have claimed to have shot down a United States military drone over Yemen, in the latest attack by the group, which has disrupted shipping trade through the crucial Bab al-Mandeb Strait, drawing US strikes. The Yemeni group has carried out dozens of attacks on ships with links to Israel in a show of solidarity with Palestinians amid Israel's 11-month-old war on Gaza. Yahya Saree, the military spokesman of the Houthi group, said in a prerecorded video message released early on Sunday that the MQ-9 Reaper was shot down by air defences over Marib as "it was carrying out hostile activities". This is the eighth drone of this type to be shot down since the start of the war on Gaza, he said. The group has not so far released footage of the downed attack and surveillance aircraft that costs about 30m.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have rapidly increased in size and apparent capabilities in the last three years, but their training data is largely English text. There is growing interest in multilingual LLMs, and various efforts are striving for models to accommodate languages of communities outside of the Global North, which include many languages that have been historically underrepresented in digital realms. These languages have been coined as "low resource languages" or "long-tail languages", and LLMs performance on these languages is generally poor. While expanding the use of LLMs to more languages may bring many potential benefits, such as assisting cross-community communication and language preservation, great care must be taken to ensure that data collection on these languages is not extractive and that it does not reproduce exploitative practices of the past. Collecting data from languages spoken by previously colonized people, indigenous people, and non-Western languages raises many complex sociopolitical and ethical questions, e.g., around consent, cultural safety, and data sovereignty. Furthermore, linguistic complexity and cultural nuances are often lost in LLMs. This position paper builds on recent scholarship, and our own work, and outlines several relevant social, cultural, and ethical considerations and potential ways to mitigate them through qualitative research, community partnerships, and participatory design approaches. We provide twelve recommendations for consideration when collecting language data on underrepresented language communities outside of the Global North.

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: \textit{truthfulness} and \textit{political bias}. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e. those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about both the datasets used to represent truthfulness and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance on code generation. Although prior studies enhanced LLMs with prompting techniques and code refinement, they still struggle with complex programming problems due to rigid solution plans. In this paper, we draw on pair programming practices to propose PairCoder, a novel LLM-based framework for code generation. PairCoder incorporates two collaborative LLM agents, namely a Navigator agent for high-level planning and a Driver agent for specific implementation. The Navigator is responsible for proposing promising solution plans, selecting the current optimal plan, and directing the next iteration round based on execution feedback. The Driver follows the guidance of Navigator to undertake initial code generation, code testing, and refinement. This interleaved and iterative workflow involves multi-plan exploration and feedback-based refinement, which mimics the collaboration of pair programmers. We evaluate PairCoder with both open-source and closed-source LLMs on various code generation benchmarks. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the superior accuracy of PairCoder, achieving relative pass@1 improvements of 12.00%-162.43% compared to prompting LLMs directly.

In today's era, Neural Networks (NN) are applied in various scientific fields such as robotics, medicine, engineering, etc. However, the predictions of neural networks themselves contain a degree of uncertainty that must always be taken into account before any decision is made. This is why many researchers have focused on developing different ways to quantify the uncertainty of neural network predictions. Some of these methods are based on generating prediction intervals (PI) via neural networks for the requested target values. The SEF (Shifting the Error Function) method presented in this paper is a new method that belongs to this category of methods. The proposed approach involves training a single neural network three times, thus generating an estimate along with the corresponding upper and lower bounds for a given problem. A pivotal aspect of the method is the calculation of a parameter from the initial network's estimates, which is then integrated into the loss functions of the other two networks. This innovative process effectively produces PIs, resulting in a robust and efficient technique for uncertainty quantification. To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, a comparison in terms of successful PI generation between the SEF, PI3NN and PIVEN methods was made using two synthetic datasets.

This paper introduces a novel approach to interactive robots by leveraging the form-factor of cards to create thin robots equipped with vibrational capabilities for locomotion and haptic feedback. The system is composed of flat-shaped robots with on-device sensing and wireless control, which offer lightweight portability and scalability. This research introduces a hardware prototype. Applications include augmented card playing, educational tools, and assistive technology, which showcase CARDinality's versatility in tangible interaction.