The rising popularity of ChatGPT and other AI-powered large language models (LLMs) has led to increasing studies highlighting their susceptibility to mistakes and biases. However, most of these studies focus on models trained on English texts. Taking an innovative approach, this study investigates political biases in GPT's multilingual models. We posed the same question about high-profile political issues in the United States and China to GPT in both English and simplified Chinese, and our analysis of the bilingual responses revealed that GPT's bilingual models' political "knowledge" (content) and the political "attitude" (sentiment) are significantly more inconsistent on political issues in China. The simplified Chinese GPT models not only tended to provide pro-China information but also presented the least negative sentiment towards China's problems, whereas the English GPT was significantly more negative towards China. This disparity may stem from Chinese state censorship and US-China geopolitical tensions, which influence the training corpora of GPT bilingual models. Moreover, both Chinese and English models tended to be less critical towards the issues of "their own" represented by the language used, than the issues of "the other." This suggests that GPT multilingual models could potentially develop a "political identity" and an associated sentiment bias based on their training language. We discussed the implications of our findings for information transmission and communication in an increasingly divided world.

The rise of AI-based and autonomous systems is raising concerns and apprehension due to potential negative repercussions stemming from their behavior or decisions. These systems must be designed to comply with the human contexts in which they will operate. To this extent, Townsend et al. (2022) introduce the concept of SLEEC (social, legal, ethical, empathetic, or cultural) rules that aim to facilitate the formulation, verification, and enforcement of the rules AI-based and autonomous systems should obey. They lay out a methodology to elicit them and to let philosophers, lawyers, domain experts, and others to formulate them in natural language. To enable their effective use in AI systems, it is necessary to translate these rules systematically into a formal language that supports automated reasoning. In this study, we first conduct a linguistic analysis of the SLEEC rules pattern, which justifies the translation of SLEEC rules into classical logic. Then we investigate the computational complexity of reasoning about SLEEC rules and show how logical programming frameworks can be employed to implement SLEEC rules in practical scenarios. The result is a readily applicable strategy for implementing AI systems that conform to norms expressed as SLEEC rules.

Scientific research organizations that are developing and deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are at the intersection of technological progress and ethical considerations. The push for Responsible AI (RAI) in such institutions underscores the increasing emphasis on integrating ethical considerations within AI design and development, championing core values like fairness, accountability, and transparency. For scientific research organizations, prioritizing these practices is paramount not just for mitigating biases and ensuring inclusivity, but also for fostering trust in AI systems among both users and broader stakeholders. In this paper, we explore the practices at a research organization concerning RAI practices, aiming to assess the awareness and preparedness regarding the ethical risks inherent in AI design and development. We have adopted a mixed-method research approach, utilising a comprehensive survey combined with follow-up in-depth interviews with selected participants from AI-related projects. Our results have revealed certain knowledge gaps concerning ethical, responsible, and inclusive AI, with limitations in awareness of the available AI ethics frameworks. This revealed an overarching underestimation of the ethical risks that AI technologies can present, especially when implemented without proper guidelines and governance. Our findings reveal the need for a holistic and multi-tiered strategy to uplift capabilities and better support science research teams for responsible, ethical, and inclusive AI development and deployment.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 and GPT-4 have opened up new opportunities for text analysis in political science. They promise automation with better results and less programming. In this study, we evaluate LLMs on three original coding tasks of non-English political science texts, and we provide a detailed description of a general workflow for using LLMs for text coding in political science research. Our use case offers a practical guide for researchers looking to incorporate LLMs into their research on text analysis. We find that, when provided with detailed label definitions and coding examples, an LLM can be as good as or even better than a human annotator while being much faster (up to hundreds of times), considerably cheaper (costing up to 60% less than human coding), and much easier to scale to large amounts of text. Overall, LLMs present a viable option for most text coding projects.

Estimating direct and indirect causal effects from observational data is crucial to understanding the causal mechanisms and predicting the behaviour under different interventions. Causal mediation analysis is a method that is often used to reveal direct and indirect effects. Deep learning shows promise in mediation analysis, but the current methods only assume latent confounders that affect treatment, mediator and outcome simultaneously, and fail to identify different types of latent confounders (e.g., confounders that only affect the mediator or outcome). Furthermore, current methods are based on the sequential ignorability assumption, which is not feasible for dealing with multiple types of latent confounders. This work aims to circumvent the sequential ignorability assumption and applies the piecemeal deconfounding assumption as an alternative. We propose the Disentangled Mediation Analysis Variational AutoEncoder (DMAVAE), which disentangles the representations of latent confounders into three types to accurately estimate the natural direct effect, natural indirect effect and total effect. Experimental results show that the proposed method outperforms existing methods and has strong generalisation ability. We further apply the method to a real-world dataset to show its potential application.

Much research has been devoted to the problem of learning fair representations; however, they do not explicitly the relationship between latent representations. In many real-world applications, there may be causal relationships between latent representations. Furthermore, most fair representation learning methods focus on group-level fairness and are based on correlations, ignoring the causal relationships underlying the data. In this work, we theoretically demonstrate that using the structured representations enable downstream predictive models to achieve counterfactual fairness, and then we propose the Counterfactual Fairness Variational AutoEncoder (CF-VAE) to obtain structured representations with respect to domain knowledge. The experimental results show that the proposed method achieves better fairness and accuracy performance than the benchmark fairness methods.

Jurors take an oath to make rulings without bias or prejudice, but a new study suggests that promise is broken when the death penalty is on the table. Researchers from Columbia University on Thursday revealed that the shape of defendants' facial features affects whether they are sentenced to death or given life in prison. Hundreds of mugshots of Florida inmates who were convicted of murder were shown to a mock jury in the experiment. Certain facial features – such as downturned lips and heavy eyebrows – were judged to be more untrustworthy and more likely to be sentenced to death. Hundreds of mugshots of Florida inmates who were convicted of murder were shown to a mock jury in the experiment.

Social science pertains to complex constructs denoted by terms like "ideology", "power", or "culture", whose meanings are contextual and generally hard to pin down precisely. Although slippery and subjective, such terms are routinely used in conversation, among experts and non-experts alike, without anyone (except the occasional pedant) demanding formal definitions from their conversational partners. It is indeed a feature of natural language discourse that such terms are assumed to wear many hats, and that conversational partners must cooperate to arrive at mutually intelligible meanings. This cooperation is typically tacit, and speakers coordinate on a shared meaning by offering examples, reformulations, and engaging generally in an elaborative process that builds upon shared context and common knowledge. In so doing however, speakers inevitably introduce new terms requiring their own processes of disambiguation.

Can generative AI help us speed up the authoring of tools to help self-represented litigants? In this paper, we describe 3 approaches to automating the completion of court forms: a generative AI approach that uses GPT-3 to iteratively prompt the user to answer questions, a constrained template-driven approach that uses GPT-4-turbo to generate a draft of questions that are subject to human review, and a hybrid method. We use the open source Docassemble platform in all 3 experiments, together with a tool created at Suffolk University Law School called the Assembly Line Weaver. We conclude that the hybrid model of constrained automated drafting with human review is best suited to the task of authoring guided interviews.

Computer simulations offer a robust toolset for exploring complex systems across various disciplines. A particularly impactful approach within this realm is Agent-Based Modeling (ABM), which harnesses the interactions of individual agents to emulate intricate system dynamics. ABM's strength lies in its bottom-up methodology, illuminating emergent phenomena by modeling the behaviors of individual components of a system. Yet, ABM has its own set of challenges, notably its struggle with modeling natural language instructions and common sense in mathematical equations or rules. This paper seeks to transcend these boundaries by integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT into ABM. This amalgamation gives birth to a novel framework, Smart Agent-Based Modeling (SABM). Building upon the concept of smart agents -- entities characterized by their intelligence, adaptability, and computation ability -- we explore in the direction of utilizing LLM-powered agents to simulate real-world scenarios with increased nuance and realism. In this comprehensive exploration, we elucidate the state of the art of ABM, introduce SABM's potential and methodology, and present three case studies (source codes available at https://github.com/Roihn/SABM), demonstrating the SABM methodology and validating its effectiveness in modeling real-world systems. Furthermore, we cast a vision towards several aspects of the future of SABM, anticipating a broader horizon for its applications. Through this endeavor, we aspire to redefine the boundaries of computer simulations, enabling a more profound understanding of complex systems.