In this paper, we sketch a programme for AI driven social theory. We begin by defining what we mean by artificial intelligence (AI) in this context. We then lay out our model for how AI based models can draw on the growing availability of digital data to help test the validity of different social theories based on their predictive power. In doing so, we use the work of Randall Collins and his state breakdown model to exemplify that, already today, AI based models can help synthesize knowledge from a variety of sources, reason about the world, and apply what is known across a wide range of problems in a systematic way. However, we also find that AI driven social theory remains subject to a range of practical, technical, and epistemological limitations. Most critically, existing AI systems lack three essential capabilities needed to advance social theory in ways that are cumulative, holistic, open-ended, and purposeful. These are (1) semanticization, i.e., the ability to develop and operationalize verbal concepts to represent machine-manipulable knowledge, (2) transferability, i.e., the ability to transfer what has been learned in one context to another, and (3) generativity, i.e., the ability to independently create and improve on concepts and models. We argue that if the gaps identified here are addressed by further research, there is no reason why, in the future, the most advanced programme in social theory should not be led by AI-driven cumulative advances.

The widespread use of generative AI systems is coupled with significant ethical and social challenges. As a result, policymakers, academic researchers, and social advocacy groups have all called for such systems to be audited. However, existing auditing procedures fail to address the governance challenges posed by generative AI systems, which display emergent capabilities and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. In this chapter, we address that gap by outlining a novel blueprint for how to audit such systems. Specifically, we propose a three-layered approach, whereby governance audits (of technology providers that design and disseminate generative AI systems), model audits (of generative AI systems after pre-training but prior to their release), and application audits (of applications based on top of generative AI systems) complement and inform each other. We show how audits on these three levels, when conducted in a structured and coordinated manner, can be a feasible and effective mechanism for identifying and managing some of the ethical and social risks posed by generative AI systems. That said, it is important to remain realistic about what auditing can reasonably be expected to achieve. For this reason, the chapter also discusses the limitations not only of our three-layered approach but also of the prospect of auditing generative AI systems at all. Ultimately, this chapter seeks to expand the methodological toolkit available to technology providers and policymakers who wish to analyse and evaluate generative AI systems from technical, ethical, and legal perspectives.

Targeted adversarial attacks are widely used to evaluate the robustness of neural machine translation systems. Unfortunately, this paper first identifies a critical issue in the existing settings of NMT targeted adversarial attacks, where their attacking results are largely overestimated. To this end, this paper presents a new setting for NMT targeted adversarial attacks that could lead to reliable attacking results. Under the new setting, it then proposes a Targeted Word Gradient adversarial Attack (TWGA) method to craft adversarial examples. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed setting could provide faithful attacking results for targeted adversarial attacks on NMT systems, and the proposed TWGA method can effectively attack such victim NMT systems. In-depth analyses on a large-scale dataset further illustrate some valuable findings. 1 Our code and data are available at https://github.com/wujunjie1998/TWGA.

AI auditing is a rapidly growing field of research and practice. This review article, which doubles as an editorial to Digital Societys topical collection on Auditing of AI, provides an overview of previous work in the field. Three key points emerge from the review. First, contemporary attempts to audit AI systems have much to learn from how audits have historically been structured and conducted in areas like financial accounting, safety engineering and the social sciences. Second, both policymakers and technology providers have an interest in promoting auditing as an AI governance mechanism. Academic researchers can thus fill an important role by studying the feasibility and effectiveness of different AI auditing procedures. Third, AI auditing is an inherently multidisciplinary undertaking, to which substantial contributions have been made by computer scientists and engineers as well as social scientists, philosophers, legal scholars and industry practitioners. Reflecting this diversity of perspectives, different approaches to AI auditing have different affordances and constraints. Specifically, a distinction can be made between technology-oriented audits, which focus on the properties and capabilities of AI systems, and process oriented audits, which focus on technology providers governance structures and quality management systems. The next step in the evolution of auditing as an AI governance mechanism, this article concludes, should be the interlinking of these available (and complementary) approaches into structured and holistic procedures to audit not only how AI systems are designed and used but also how they impact users, societies and the natural environment in applied settings over time.

Language technologies should be judged on their usefulness in real-world use cases. An often overlooked aspect in natural language processing (NLP) research and evaluation is language variation in the form of non-standard dialects or language varieties (hereafter, varieties). Most NLP benchmarks are limited to standard language varieties. To fill this gap, we propose DIALECTBENCH, the first-ever large-scale benchmark for NLP on varieties, which aggregates an extensive set of task-varied variety datasets (10 text-level tasks covering 281 varieties). This allows for a comprehensive evaluation of NLP system performance on different language varieties. We provide substantial evidence of performance disparities between standard and non-standard language varieties, and we also identify language clusters with large performance divergence across tasks. We believe DIALECTBENCH provides a comprehensive view of the current state of NLP for language varieties and one step towards advancing it further. Code/data: https://github.com/ffaisal93/DialectBench

GEO communication satellites generate significant revenue but can only function reliably for approximately 10 years on orbit. One of the main drivers that limits the reliability of a GEO satellite is the electric power system, and in particular, anomalies related to batteries and degradation of the solar arrays. Given the high cost and relatively short lifespan of GEO satellites, there has been increased research activity towards developing on-orbit servicing systems. However, most of the existing servicing systems are expensive, highly customized, and focus on refueling tasks. On-orbit refueling can be very useful, however, it does not improve satellite reliability which is crucial for long-term missions. Therefore, we propose SSPARE (Space Solar Power Autonomously Reconfigurable Elements), a cost-effective, self-servicing power system. Aside from improving satellite reliability, SSPARE enables to generate up to 6 times more power per launch compared to a traditional GEO communication satellite. This study explores why GEO satellites fail and elaborates on the SSPARE concept. A comparison of SSPARE against a traditional on-orbit servicing mission highlights the benefits of the proposed concept. With humanity striving to become more and more Earth-independent, this work aims to build a foundation for future systems such as large solar power farms on-orbit.

On the whole, the U.S. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 (US AAA) is a pragmatic approach to balancing the benefits and risks of automated decision systems. Yet there is still room for improvement. This commentary highlights how the US AAA can both inform and learn from the European Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AIA).

The adoption of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) has sparked considerable interest across diverse industries, including public transportation, underground mining, and agriculture sectors. However, CAVs' reliance on sensor readings makes them vulnerable to significant threats. Manipulating these readings can compromise CAV network security, posing serious risks for malicious activities. Although several anomaly detection (AD) approaches for CAV networks are proposed, they often fail to: i) detect multiple anomalies in specific sensor(s) with high accuracy or F1 score, and ii) identify the specific sensor being attacked. In response, this paper proposes a novel framework tailored to CAV networks, called CAV-AD, for distinguishing abnormal readings amidst multiple anomaly data while identifying malicious sensors. Specifically, CAV-AD comprises two main components: i) A novel CNN model architecture called optimized omni-scale CNN (O-OS-CNN), which optimally selects the time scale by generating all possible kernel sizes for input time series data; ii) An amplification block to increase the values of anomaly readings, enhancing sensitivity for detecting anomalies. Not only that, but CAV-AD integrates the proposed O-OS-CNN with a Kalman filter to instantly identify the malicious sensors. We extensively train CAV-AD using real-world datasets containing both instant and constant attacks, evaluating its performance in detecting intrusions from multiple anomalies, which presents a more challenging scenario. Our results demonstrate that CAV-AD outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving an average accuracy of 98% and an average F1 score of 89\%, while accurately identifying the malicious sensors.

Convex programming plays a fundamental role in machine learning, data science, and engineering. Testing convexity structure in nonlinear programs relies on verifying the convexity of objectives and constraints. \citet{grant2006disciplined} introduced a framework, Disciplined Convex Programming (DCP), for automating this verification task for a wide range of convex functions that can be decomposed into basic convex functions (atoms) using convexity-preserving compositions and transformations (rules). However, the restriction to Euclidean convexity concepts can limit the applicability of the framework. For instance, many notable instances of statistical estimators and matrix-valued (sub)routines in machine learning applications are Euclidean non-convex, but exhibit geodesic convexity through a more general Riemannian lens. In this work, we extend disciplined programming to this setting by introducing Disciplined Geodesically Convex Programming (DGCP). We determine convexity-preserving compositions and transformations for geodesically convex functions on general Cartan-Hadamard manifolds, as well as for the special case of symmetric positive definite matrices, a common setting in matrix-valued optimization. For the latter, we also define a basic set of atoms. Our paper is accompanied by a Julia package SymbolicAnalysis.jl, which provides functionality for testing and certifying DGCP-compliant expressions. Our library interfaces with manifold optimization software, which allows for directly solving verified geodesically convex programs.

ABC News' Jonathan Karl offered a grim reaction to the highly-anticipated interview with President Biden, saying it won't "calm the nerves" of "jittery Democrats" pushing to get him out of the 2024 race. President Biden did not calm his critics on Friday night following his interview with ABC News, fueling more calls for him to withdraw from the 2024 race and sparking fierce condemnation for refusing to commit to a cognitive exam. "I wimped out in today's column and deleted a line saying he should formulate a plan to transition the presidency to Harris within 30-60 days, but I'm there now. Something is clearly wrong here," polling guru Nate Silver reacted to the Biden interview. "The most generous way to put it is that he doesn't seem in command, and that's an extremely hard sell when you're Commander in Chief. I continue to think this number is low and Democrats will apply incredible amounts of pressure," Silver continued, pointing to the Polymarket stat showing a "57% chance" Biden drops out of the race.