The conflict in Ukraine has been not only characterised by military engagement but also by a significant information war, with social media platforms like X, formerly known as Twitter playing an important role in shaping public perception. This article provides an analysis of tweets from propaganda accounts and trusted accounts collected from the onset of the war, February 2022 until the middle of May 2022 with n=40,000 total tweets. We utilise natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to assess the sentiment and identify key themes, topics and narratives across the dataset with human-in-the-loop (HITL) analysis throughout. Our findings indicate distinct strategies in how information is created, spread, and targeted at different audiences by both sides. Propaganda accounts frequently employ emotionally charged language and disinformation to evoke fear and distrust, whereas other accounts, primarily Western tend to focus on factual reporting and humanitarian aspects of the conflict. Clustering analysis reveals groups of accounts with similar behaviours, which we suspect indicates the presence of coordinated efforts. This research attempts to contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of information warfare and offers techniques for future studies on social media influence in military conflicts.

It has been hypothesized that neural networks with similar architectures trained on similar data learn shared representations relevant to the learning task. We build on this idea by extending the conceptual framework where representations learned across models trained on the same data can be expressed as linear combinations of a \emph{universal} set of basis features. These basis features underlie the learning task itself and remain consistent across models, regardless of scale. From this framework, we propose the \textbf{Linear Representation Transferability (LRT)} Hypothesis -- that there exists an affine transformation between the representation spaces of different models. To test this hypothesis, we learn affine mappings between the hidden states of models of different sizes and evaluate whether steering vectors -- directions in hidden state space associated with specific model behaviors -- retain their semantic effect when transferred from small to large language models using the learned mappings. We find strong empirical evidence that such affine mappings can preserve steering behaviors. These findings suggest that representations learned by small models can be used to guide the behavior of large models, and that the LRT hypothesis may be a promising direction on understanding representation alignment across model scales.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to exhibit increasingly human-like capabilities, aligning them with human values has become critically important. Contemporary advanced techniques, such as prompt learning and reinforcement learning, are being deployed to better align LLMs with human values. However, while these approaches address broad ethical considerations and helpfulness, they rarely focus on simulating individualized human value systems. To address this gap, we present ValueSim, a framework that simulates individual values through the generation of personal backstories reflecting past experiences and demographic information. ValueSim converts structured individual data into narrative backstories and employs a multi-module architecture inspired by the Cognitive-Affective Personality System to simulate individual values based on these narratives. Testing ValueSim on a self-constructed benchmark derived from the World Values Survey demonstrates an improvement in top-1 accuracy by over 10% compared to retrieval-augmented generation methods. Further analysis reveals that performance enhances as additional user interaction history becomes available, indicating the model's ability to refine its persona simulation capabilities over time.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) and expanded their applications across diverse domains. However, despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs have been shown to reflect and perpetuate harmful societal biases, including those based on ethnicity, gender, and religion. A critical and underexplored issue is the reinforcement of caste-based biases, particularly towards India's marginalized caste groups such as Dalits and Shudras. In this paper, we address this gap by proposing DECASTE, a novel, multi-dimensional framework designed to detect and assess both implicit and explicit caste biases in LLMs. Our approach evaluates caste fairness across four dimensions: socio-cultural, economic, educational, and political, using a range of customized prompting strategies. By benchmarking several state-of-the-art LLMs, we reveal that these models systematically reinforce caste biases, with significant disparities observed in the treatment of oppressed versus dominant caste groups. For example, bias scores are notably elevated when comparing Dalits and Shudras with dominant caste groups, reflecting societal prejudices that persist in model outputs. These results expose the subtle yet pervasive caste biases in LLMs and emphasize the need for more comprehensive and inclusive bias evaluation methodologies that assess the potential risks of deploying such models in real-world contexts.

Regulatory efforts to govern large language model (LLM) development have predominantly focused on restricting access to high-performance computational resources. This study evaluates the efficacy of such measures by examining whether LLM capabilities can advance through algorithmic innovation in compute-constrained environments. We propose a novel framework distinguishing compute-dependent innovations--which yield disproportionate benefits at high compute--from compute-independent innovations, which improve efficiency across compute scales. The impact is quantified using Compute-Equivalent Gain (CEG). Experimental validation with nanoGPT models confirms that compute-independent advancements yield significant performance gains (e.g., with combined CEG up to $3.5\times$) across the tested scales. In contrast, compute-dependent advancements were detrimental to performance at smaller experimental scales, but showed improved CEG (on par with the baseline) as model size increased, a trend consistent with their definition of yielding primary benefits at higher compute. Crucially, these findings indicate that restrictions on computational hardware, while potentially slowing LLM progress, are insufficient to prevent all capability gains driven by algorithmic advancements. We argue that effective AI oversight must therefore incorporate mechanisms for understanding, anticipating, and potentially guiding algorithmic research, moving beyond a singular focus on hardware. The proposed framework also serves as an analytical tool for forecasting AI progress.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) pose unique safety challenges due to their integration of visual and textual data, thereby introducing new dimensions of potential attacks and complex risk combinations. In this paper, we begin with a detailed analysis aimed at disentangling risks through step-by-step reasoning within multimodal inputs. We find that systematic multimodal risk disentanglement substantially enhances the risk awareness of MLLMs. Via leveraging the strong discriminative abilities of multimodal risk disentanglement, we further introduce \textbf{DREAM} (\textit{\textbf{D}isentangling \textbf{R}isks to \textbf{E}nhance Safety \textbf{A}lignment in \textbf{M}LLMs}), a novel approach that enhances safety alignment in MLLMs through supervised fine-tuning and iterative Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF). Experimental results show that DREAM significantly boosts safety during both inference and training phases without compromising performance on normal tasks (namely oversafety), achieving a 16.17\% improvement in the SIUO safe\&effective score compared to GPT-4V. The data and code are available at https://github.com/Kizna1ver/DREAM.

Accurate and verifiable large language model (LLM) simulations of human research subjects promise an accessible data source for understanding human behavior and training new AI systems. However, results to date have been limited, and few social scientists have adopted this method. In this position paper, we argue that the promise of LLM social simulations can be achieved by addressing five tractable challenges. We ground our argument in a review of empirical comparisons between LLMs and human research subjects, commentaries on the topic, and related work. We identify promising directions, including context-rich prompting and fine-tuning with social science datasets. We believe that LLM social simulations can already be used for pilot and exploratory studies, and more widespread use may soon be possible with rapidly advancing LLM capabilities. Researchers should prioritize developing conceptual models and iterative evaluations to make the best use of new AI systems.

Search-augmented language models combine web search with Large Language Models (LLMs) to improve response groundedness and freshness. However, analyzing these systems remains challenging: existing datasets are limited in scale and narrow in scope, often constrained to static, single-turn, fact-checking questions. In this work, we introduce Search Arena, a crowd-sourced, large-scale, human-preference dataset of over 24,000 paired multi-turn user interactions with search-augmented LLMs. The dataset spans diverse intents and languages, and contains full system traces with around 12,000 human preference votes. Our analysis reveals that user preferences are influenced by the number of citations, even when the cited content does not directly support the attributed claims, uncovering a gap between perceived and actual credibility. Furthermore, user preferences vary across cited sources, revealing that community-driven platforms are generally preferred and static encyclopedic sources are not always appropriate and reliable. To assess performance across different settings, we conduct cross-arena analyses by testing search-augmented LLMs in a general-purpose chat environment and conventional LLMs in search-intensive settings. We find that web search does not degrade and may even improve performance in non-search settings; however, the quality in search settings is significantly affected if solely relying on the model's parametric knowledge. We open-sourced the dataset to support future research in this direction. Our dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/lmarena/search-arena.

This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant First Amendment protections to outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment speech right to receive the outputs. We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government's ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

Large language models (LLMs) are typically trained on enormous quantities of unlicensed text, a practice that has led to scrutiny due to possible intellectual property infringement and ethical concerns. Training LLMs on openly licensed text presents a first step towards addressing these issues, but prior data collection efforts have yielded datasets too small or low-quality to produce performant LLMs. To address this gap, we collect, curate, and release the Common Pile v0.1, an eight terabyte collection of openly licensed text designed for LLM pretraining. The Common Pile comprises content from 30 sources that span diverse domains including research papers, code, books, encyclopedias, educational materials, audio transcripts, and more. Crucially, we validate our efforts by training two 7 billion parameter LLMs on text from the Common Pile: Comma v0.1-1T and Comma v0.1-2T, trained on 1 and 2 trillion tokens respectively. Both models attain competitive performance to LLMs trained on unlicensed text with similar computational budgets, such as Llama 1 and 2 7B. In addition to releasing the Common Pile v0.1 itself, we also release the code used in its creation as well as the training mixture and checkpoints for the Comma v0.1 models.