The below article first appeared in David Corn's newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just 5 a month--but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. There are only a few potential existential threats to human society, as far as we know. Nuclear weapons are the most obvious.

ChatGPT conversations lack "legal privilege"Quotable ChatGPT conversations lack "legal privilege" Published On 30 Jul 202530 Jul 2025 Gaza is starving as "abundance of food" sits nearby Video Duration 01 minutes 30 seconds play-arrow01:30 * Palestinian lives are "not seen as equivalent" to others Video Duration 00 minutes 59 seconds play-arrow00:59 * UNRWA's "ability to respond" to needs in Gaza depend on Israel Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds play-arrow01:06 * Malaysia "calls on world leaders" to restrain Israel Video Duration 01 minutes 20 seconds play-arrow01:20 *

AGI Racing is the view that it is in the self-interest of major actors in AI development, especially powerful nations, to accelerate their frontier AI development to build highly capable AI, especially artificial general intelligence (AGI), before competitors have a chance. We argue against AGI Racing. First, the downsides of racing to AGI are much higher than portrayed by this view. Racing to AGI would substantially increase catastrophic risks from AI, including nuclear instability, and undermine the prospects of technical AI safety research to be effective. Second, the expected benefits of racing may be lower than proponents of AGI Racing hold. In particular, it is questionable whether winning the race enables complete domination over losers. Third, international cooperation and coordination, and perhaps carefully crafted deterrence measures, constitute viable alternatives to racing to AGI which have much smaller risks and promise to deliver most of the benefits that racing to AGI is supposed to provide. Hence, racing to AGI is not in anyone's self-interest as other actions, particularly incentivizing and seeking international cooperation around AI issues, are preferable.

Studying the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) to unsafe behaviors is an important topic of research today. Building safety classification models or guard models, which are fine-tuned models for input/output safety classification for LLMs, is seen as one of the solutions to address the issue. Although there is a lot of research on the safety testing of LLMs themselves, there is little research on evaluating the effectiveness of such safety classifiers or the evaluation datasets used for testing them, especially in multilingual scenarios. In this position paper, we demonstrate how multilingual disparities exist in 5 safety classification models by considering datasets covering 18 languages. At the same time, we identify potential issues with the evaluation datasets, arguing that the shortcomings of current safety classifiers are not only because of the models themselves. We expect that these findings will contribute to the discussion on developing better methods to identify harmful content in LLM inputs across languages.

Extracting structured information from text, such as key-value pairs that could augment tabular data, is quite useful in many enterprise use cases. Although large language models (LLMs) have enabled numerous automated pipelines for converting natural language into structured formats, there is still a lack of benchmarks for evaluating their extraction quality, especially in specific domains or focused documents specific to a given organization. Building such benchmarks by manual annotations is labour-intensive and limits the size and scalability of the benchmarks. In this work, we present StructText, an end-to-end framework for automatically generating high-fidelity benchmarks for key-value extraction from text using existing tabular data. It uses available tabular data as structured ground truth, and follows a two-stage ``plan-then-execute'' pipeline to synthetically generate corresponding natural-language text. To ensure alignment between text and structured source, we introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation strategy that combines (a) LLM-based judgments on factuality, hallucination, and coherence and (b) objective extraction metrics measuring numeric and temporal accuracy. We evaluated the proposed method on 71,539 examples across 49 datasets. Results reveal that while LLMs achieve strong factual accuracy and avoid hallucination, they struggle with narrative coherence in producing extractable text. Notably, models presume numerical and temporal information with high fidelity yet this information becomes embedded in narratives that resist automated extraction. We release a framework, including datasets, evaluation tools, and baseline extraction systems, to support continued research.

The emergence of AI agents powered by large language models (LLMs) marks a pivotal shift toward the Agentic Web, a new phase of the internet defined by autonomous, goal-driven interactions. In this paradigm, agents interact directly with one another to plan, coordinate, and execute complex tasks on behalf of users. This transition from human-driven to machine-to-machine interaction allows intent to be delegated, relieving users from routine digital operations and enabling a more interactive, automated web experience. In this paper, we present a structured framework for understanding and building the Agentic Web. We trace its evolution from the PC and Mobile Web eras and identify the core technological foundations that support this shift. Central to our framework is a conceptual model consisting of three key dimensions: intelligence, interaction, and economics. These dimensions collectively enable the capabilities of AI agents, such as retrieval, recommendation, planning, and collaboration. We analyze the architectural and infrastructural challenges involved in creating scalable agentic systems, including communication protocols, orchestration strategies, and emerging paradigms such as the Agent Attention Economy. We conclude by discussing the potential applications, societal risks, and governance issues posed by agentic systems, and outline research directions for developing open, secure, and intelligent ecosystems shaped by both human intent and autonomous agent behavior. A continuously updated collection of relevant studies for agentic web is available at: https://github.com/SafeRL-Lab/agentic-web.

This short paper is a primer on the nature of state sovereignty and the importance of claims about it. It also aims to reveal (merely reveal) a strategy for working with vague or contradictory data about which states, in fact, are sovereign. These goals together are intended to set the stage for applied work in ontology about international affairs.

Enterprise environments contain a heterogeneous, rapidly growing collection of internal artifacts related to code, data, and many different tools. Critical information for assessing privacy risk and ensuring regulatory compliance is often embedded across these varied resources, each with their own arcane discovery and extraction techniques. Therefore, large-scale privacy compliance in adherence to governmental regulations requires systems to discern the interconnected nature of diverse artifacts in a common, shared universe. We present Privacy Artifact ConnecT or (PACT), an embeddings-driven graph that links millions of artifacts spanning multiple artifact types generated by a variety of teams and projects. Powered by the state-of-the-art DRAGON embedding model, PACT uses a contrastive learning objective with light fine-tuning to link artifacts via their textual components such as raw metadata, ownership specifics, and compliance context. Experimental results show that PACT's fine-tuned model improves recall@1 from 18% to 53%, the query match rate from 9.6% to 69.7% when paired with a baseline AI agent, and the hitrate@1 from 25.7% to 44.9% for candidate selection in a standard recommender system.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have intensified the need to understand and reliably curb their harmful behaviours. We introduce a multidimensional framework for probing and steering harmful content in model internals. For each of 55 distinct harmfulness subconcepts (e.g., racial hate, employment scams, weapons), we learn a linear probe, yielding 55 interpretable directions in activation space. Collectively, these directions span a harmfulness subspace that we show is strikingly low-rank. We then test ablation of the entire subspace from model internals, as well as steering and ablation in the subspace's dominant direction. We find that dominant direction steering allows for near elimination of harmfulness with a low decrease in utility. Our findings advance the emerging view that concept subspaces provide a scalable lens on LLM behaviour and offer practical tools for the community to audit and harden future generations of language models.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-risk domains such as law, finance, and medicine, systematically evaluating their domain-specific safety and compliance becomes critical. While prior work has largely focused on improving LLM performance in these domains, it has often neglected the evaluation of domain-specific safety risks. To bridge this gap, we first define domain-specific safety principles for LLMs based on the AMA Principles of Medical Ethics, the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and the CFA Institute Code of Ethics. Building on this foundation, we introduce Trident-Bench, a benchmark specifically targeting LLM safety in the legal, financial, and medical domains. We evaluated 19 general-purpose and domain-specialized models on Trident-Bench and show that it effectively reveals key safety gaps -- strong generalist models (e.g., GPT, Gemini) can meet basic expectations, whereas domain-specialized models often struggle with subtle ethical nuances. This highlights an urgent need for finer-grained domain-specific safety improvements. By introducing Trident-Bench, our work provides one of the first systematic resources for studying LLM safety in law and finance, and lays the groundwork for future research aimed at reducing the safety risks of deploying LLMs in professionally regulated fields. Code and benchmark will be released at: https://github.com/zackhuiiiii/TRIDENT