As artificial intelligence rapidly transforms society, developers and policymakers struggle to anticipate which applications will face public moral resistance. We propose that these judgments are not idiosyncratic but systematic and predictable. In a large, preregistered study (N = 587, U.S. representative sample), we used a comprehensive taxonomy of 100 AI applications spanning personal and organizational contexts-including both functional uses and the moral treatment of AI itself. In participants' collective judgment, applications ranged from highly unacceptable to fully acceptable. We found this variation was strongly predictable: five core moral qualities-perceived risk, benefit, dishonesty, unnaturalness, and reduced accountability-collectively explained over 90% of the variance in acceptability ratings. The framework demonstrated strong predictive power across all domains and successfully predicted individual-level judgments for held-out applications. These findings reveal that a structured moral psychology underlies public evaluation of new technologies, offering a powerful tool for anticipating public resistance and guiding responsible innovation in AI.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly seen as assistants, copilots, and consultants, capable of supporting a wide range of tasks through natural conversation. However, most systems remain constrained by a linear request-response format that often makes interactions inefficient in multi-turn, information-dense, and exploratory tasks. To address these limitations, we propose Generative Interfaces for Language Models, a paradigm in which LLMs respond to user queries by proactively generating user interfaces (UIs) that enable more adaptive and interactive engagement. Our framework leverages structured interface-specific representations and iterative refinements to translate user queries into task-specific UIs. For systematic evaluation, we introduce a multidimensional assessment framework that compares generative interfaces with traditional chat-based ones across diverse tasks, interaction patterns, and query types, capturing functional, interactive, and emotional aspects of user experience. Results show that generative interfaces consistently outperform conversational ones, with up to a 72% improvement in human preference. These findings clarify when and why users favor generative interfaces, paving the way for future advancements in human-AI interaction.

Training reinforcement learning agents with human feedback is crucial when task objectives are difficult to specify through dense reward functions. While prior methods rely on offline trajectory comparisons to elicit human preferences, such data is unavailable in online learning scenarios where agents must adapt on the fly. Recent approaches address this by collecting real-time scalar feedback to guide agent behavior and train reward models for continued learning after human feedback becomes unavailable. However, scalar feedback is often noisy and inconsistent, limiting the accuracy and generalization of learned rewards. We propose Pref-GUIDE, a framework that transforms real-time scalar feedback into preference-based data to improve reward model learning for continual policy training. Pref-GUIDE Individual mitigates temporal inconsistency by comparing agent behaviors within short windows and filtering ambiguous feedback. Pref-GUIDE Voting further enhances robustness by aggregating reward models across a population of users to form consensus preferences. Across three challenging environments, Pref-GUIDE significantly outperforms scalar-feedback baselines, with the voting variant exceeding even expert-designed dense rewards. By reframing scalar feedback as structured preferences with population feedback, Pref-GUIDE offers a scalable and principled approach for harnessing human input in online reinforcement learning.

Modern large language models often encode sensitive, harmful, or copyrighted knowledge, raising the need for post-hoc unlearning-the ability to remove specific domains of knowledge from a model without full retraining. A major bottleneck in current unlearning pipelines is constructing effective forget sets-datasets that approximate the target domain and guide the model to forget it. In this work, we introduce a scalable, automated approach to generate high-quality forget sets using language models themselves. Our method synthesizes textbook-style data through a structured prompting pipeline, requiring only a domain name as input. Through experiments on unlearning biosecurity, cybersecurity, and Harry Potter novels, we show that our synthetic datasets consistently outperform the baseline synthetic alternatives and are comparable to the expert-curated ones. Additionally, ablation studies reveal that the multi-step generation pipeline significantly boosts data diversity, which in turn improves unlearning utility. Overall, our findings suggest that synthetic datasets offer a promising path toward practical, scalable unlearning for a wide range of emerging domains without the need for manual intervention. We release our code and dataset at https://github.com/xyzhu123/Synthetic_Textbook.

Moral competence is the ability to act in accordance with moral principles. As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in situations demanding moral competence, there is increasing interest in evaluating this ability empirically. We review existing literature and identify three significant shortcoming: (i) Over-reliance on prepackaged moral scenarios with explicitly highlighted moral features; (ii) Focus on verdict prediction rather than moral reasoning; and (iii) Inadequate testing of models' (in)ability to recognize when additional information is needed. Grounded in philosophical research on moral skill, we then introduce a novel method for assessing moral competence in LLMs. Our approach moves beyond simple verdict comparisons to evaluate five dimensions of moral competence: identifying morally relevant features, weighting their importance, assigning moral reasons to these features, synthesizing coherent moral judgments, and recognizing information gaps. We conduct two experiments comparing six leading LLMs against non-expert humans and professional philosophers. In our first experiment using ethical vignettes standard to existing work, LLMs generally outperformed non-expert humans across multiple dimensions of moral reasoning. However, our second experiment, featuring novel scenarios designed to test moral sensitivity by embedding relevant features among irrelevant details, revealed a striking reversal: several LLMs performed significantly worse than humans. Our findings suggest that current evaluations may substantially overestimate LLMs' moral reasoning capabilities by eliminating the task of discerning moral relevance from noisy information, which we take to be a prerequisite for genuine moral skill. This work provides a more nuanced framework for assessing AI moral competence and highlights important directions for improving moral competence in advanced AI systems.

Large Multimodal Models have achieved remarkable progress in integrating vision and language, enabling strong performance across perception, reasoning, and domain-specific tasks. However, their capacity to reason over multiple, visually similar inputs remains insufficiently explored. Such fine-grained comparative reasoning is central to real-world tasks, especially in mathematics and education, where learners must often distinguish between nearly identical diagrams to identify correct solutions. To address this gap, we present VisioMath, a curated benchmark of 1,800 high-quality K-12 mathematics problems in which all candidate answers are diagrams with subtle visual similarities. A comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art LMMs, covering both leading closed-source systems and widely adopted open-source models, reveals a consistent decline in accuracy as inter-image similarity increases. Analysis indicates that the dominant failure mode stems from image-text misalignment: rather than grounding reasoning in textual cues, models often resort to shallow positional heuristics, resulting in systematic errors. We further explore three alignment-oriented strategies, spanning training-free approaches and finetuning, and achieve substantial accuracy gains. We hope that VisioMath will serve as a rigorous benchmark and catalyst for developing LMMs toward deeper diagram understanding, precise comparative reasoning, and grounded multi-image-text integration.

The growing collaboration between humans and AI models in generative tasks has introduced new challenges in distinguishing between human-written, LLM-generated, and human--LLM collaborative texts. In this work, we collect a multilingual, multi-domain, multi-generator dataset FAIDSet. We further introduce a fine-grained detection framework FAID to classify text into these three categories, and also to identify the underlying LLM family of the generator. Unlike existing binary classifiers, FAID is built to capture both authorship and model-specific characteristics. Our method combines multi-level contrastive learning with multi-task auxiliary classification to learn subtle stylistic cues. By modeling LLM families as distinct stylistic entities, we incorporate an adaptation to address distributional shifts without retraining for unseen data. Our experimental results demonstrate that FAID outperforms several baselines, particularly enhancing the generalization accuracy on unseen domains and new LLMs, thus offering a potential solution for improving transparency and accountability in AI-assisted writing.

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices--including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that most reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements--far below prior claims--and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME'24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization in the settings we study. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

Amazon Prime Day is live. See the best deals HERE. What are ultra-processed foods and are they bad for me? From frozen pizza to lactose-free milk, food processing takes many forms. Here's how to tell when it's helping or hurting us.

Things to Do in L.A. Tap to enable a layout that focuses on the article. Vanessa Silver, who tutors young children with dyslexia, works with Liina Yerro, 9, in Granada Hills. This is read by an automated voice. Please report any issues or inconsistencies here . California to begin universal screening of kindergarten through second-grade students for reading difficulties, including dyslexia.