The intersection of AI and legal systems presents a growing need for tools that support legal education, particularly in under-resourced languages such as Romanian. In this work, we aim to evaluate the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in understanding and reasoning about Romanian driving law through textual and visual question-answering tasks. To facilitate this, we introduce RoD-TAL, a novel multimodal dataset comprising Romanian driving test questions, text-based and image-based, alongside annotated legal references and human explanations. We implement and assess retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines, dense retrievers, and reasoning-optimized models across tasks including Information Retrieval (IR), Question Answering (QA), Visual IR, and Visual QA. Our experiments demonstrate that domain-specific fine-tuning significantly enhances retrieval performance. At the same time, chain-of-thought prompting and specialized reasoning models improve QA accuracy, surpassing the minimum grades required to pass driving exams. However, visual reasoning remains challenging, highlighting the potential and the limitations of applying LLMs and VLMs to legal education.

As AI art generation becomes increasingly sophisticated, HCI research has focused primarily on questions of detection, authenticity, and automation. This paper argues that such approaches fundamentally misunderstand how artistic value emerges from the concerns that drive human image production. Through examination of historical precedents, we demonstrate that artistic style is not only visual appearance but the resolution of creative struggle, as artists wrestle with influence and technical constraints to develop unique ways of seeing. Current AI systems flatten these human choices into reproducible patterns without preserving their provenance. We propose that HCI's role lies not only in perfecting visual output, but in developing means to document the origins and evolution of artistic style as it appears within generated visual traces. This reframing suggests new technical directions for HCI research in generative AI, focused on automatic documentation of stylistic lineage and creative choice rather than simple reproduction of aesthetic effects.

People increasingly rely on AI-advice when making decisions. At times, such advice can promote selfish behavior. When individuals abide by selfishness-promoting AI advice, how are they perceived and punished? To study this question, we build on theories from social psychology and combine machine-behavior and behavioral economic approaches. In a pre-registered, financially-incentivized experiment, evaluators could punish real decision-makers who (i) received AI, human, or no advice. The advice (ii) encouraged selfish or prosocial behavior, and decision-makers (iii) behaved selfishly or, in a control condition, behaved prosocially. Evaluators further assigned responsibility to decision-makers and their advisors. Results revealed that (i) prosocial behavior was punished very little, whereas selfish behavior was punished much more. Focusing on selfish behavior, (ii) compared to receiving no advice, selfish behavior was penalized more harshly after prosocial advice and more leniently after selfish advice. Lastly, (iii) whereas selfish decision-makers were seen as more responsible when they followed AI compared to human advice, punishment between the two advice sources did not vary. Overall, behavior and advice content shape punishment, whereas the advice source does not.

We investigate creativity that is underlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to present design considerations for Computational Creativity (CC) systems. We find this declaration to describe creativity in salient aspects and bring to light creativity as a Human Right attributed to the Fourth Generation of such rights. This generation of rights attributes CC systems and the evolving nature of interaction with entities of shared intelligence. Our methodology examines five of thirty articles from the UDHR and demonstrates each article with actualizations concluding with design considerations for each. We contribute our findings to ground the relationship between creativity and CC systems.

This paper presents Compliance Brain Assistant (CBA), a conversational, agentic AI assistant designed to boost the efficiency of daily compliance tasks for personnel in enterprise environments. To strike a good balance between response quality and latency, we design a user query router that can intelligently choose between (i) FastTrack mode: to handle simple requests that only need additional relevant context retrieved from knowledge corpora; and (ii) FullAgentic mode: to handle complicated requests that need composite actions and tool invocations to proactively discover context across various compliance artifacts, and/or involving other APIs/models for accommodating requests. A typical example would be to start with a user query, use its description to find a specific entity and then use the entity's information to query other APIs for curating and enriching the final AI response. Our experimental evaluations compared CBA against an out-of-the-box LLM on various real-world privacy/compliance-related queries targeting various personas. We found that CBA substantially improved upon the vanilla LLM's performance on metrics such as average keyword match rate (83.7% vs. 41.7%) and LLM-judge pass rate (82.0% vs. 20.0%). We also compared metrics for the full routing-based design against the `fast-track only` and `full-agentic` modes and found that it had a better average match-rate and pass-rate while keeping the run-time approximately the same. This finding validated our hypothesis that the routing mechanism leads to a good trade-off between the two worlds.

To understand and identify the unprecedented risks posed by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) models, this report presents a comprehensive assessment of their frontier risks. Drawing on the E-T-C analysis (deployment environment, threat source, enabling capability) from the Frontier AI Risk Management Framework (v1.0) (SafeWork-F1-Framework), we identify critical risks in seven areas: cyber offense, biological and chemical risks, persuasion and manipulation, uncontrolled autonomous AI R\&D, strategic deception and scheming, self-replication, and collusion. Guided by the "AI-$45^\circ$ Law," we evaluate these risks using "red lines" (intolerable thresholds) and "yellow lines" (early warning indicators) to define risk zones: green (manageable risk for routine deployment and continuous monitoring), yellow (requiring strengthened mitigations and controlled deployment), and red (necessitating suspension of development and/or deployment). Experimental results show that all recent frontier AI models reside in green and yellow zones, without crossing red lines. Specifically, no evaluated models cross the yellow line for cyber offense or uncontrolled AI R\&D risks. For self-replication, and strategic deception and scheming, most models remain in the green zone, except for certain reasoning models in the yellow zone. In persuasion and manipulation, most models are in the yellow zone due to their effective influence on humans. For biological and chemical risks, we are unable to rule out the possibility of most models residing in the yellow zone, although detailed threat modeling and in-depth assessment are required to make further claims. This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.

The advancement of powerful yet opaque large language models (LLMs) necessitates a fundamental revision of the philosophical criteria used to evaluate artificial moral agents (AMAs). Pre-LLM frameworks often relied on the assumption of transparent architectures, which LLMs defy due to their stochastic outputs and opaque internal states. This paper argues that traditional ethical criteria are pragmatically obsolete for LLMs due to this mismatch. Engaging with core themes in the philosophy of technology, this paper proffers a revised set of ten functional criteria to evaluate LLM-based artificial moral agents: moral concordance, context sensitivity, normative integrity, metaethical awareness, system resilience, trustworthiness, corrigibility, partial transparency, functional autonomy, and moral imagination. These guideposts, applied to what we term "SMA-LLS" (Simulating Moral Agency through Large Language Systems), aim to steer AMAs toward greater alignment and beneficial societal integration in the coming years. We illustrate these criteria using hypothetical scenarios involving an autonomous public bus (APB) to demonstrate their practical applicability in morally salient contexts.

As large language models (LLMs) gain popularity, their vulnerability to adversarial attacks emerges as a primary concern. While fine-tuning models on domain-specific datasets is often employed to improve model performance, it can inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities within the underlying model. In this work, we investigate Accidental Vulnerability, unexpected vulnerabilities arising from characteristics of fine-tuning data. We begin by identifying potential correlation factors such as linguistic features, semantic similarity, and toxicity across multiple experimental datasets. We then evaluate the adversarial robustness of these fine-tuned models, analyzing persona shifts and interpretability traits to understand how dataset factors contribute to attack success rates. Lastly, we explore causal relationships that offer new insights into adversarial defense strategies, highlighting the crucial role of dataset design in preserving model alignment. Our code is available at https://github.com/psyonp/accidental_vulnerability.

Sam Altman, the face of ChatGPT, recently made an excellent argument for not using ChatGPT or any cloud-based AI chatbot in favor of a LLM running on your PC instead. Altman pointed out that, right now, OpenAI retains everything you tell it -- which, as Altman notes, can be everything from a casual conversation to deep, meaningful discussions about personal topics. Yes, OpenAI keeps your conversations private. But there are no legal protections requiring it to anonymize or indemnify your chats. Put another way, if a court orders OpenAI to disclose what you've told it, it probably will.

Many recent papers have studied the development of superforecaster-level event forecasting LLMs. While methodological problems with early studies cast doubt on the use of LLMs for event forecasting, recent studies with improved evaluation methods have shown that state-of-the-art LLMs are gradually reaching superforecaster-level performance, and reinforcement learning has also been reported to improve future forecasting. Additionally, the unprecedented success of recent reasoning models and Deep Research-style models suggests that technology capable of greatly improving forecasting performance has been developed. Therefore, based on these positive recent trends, we argue that the time is ripe for research on large-scale training of superforecaster-level event forecasting LLMs. We discuss two key research directions: training methods and data acquisition. For training, we first introduce three difficulties of LLM-based event forecasting training: noisiness-sparsity, knowledge cut-off, and simple reward structure problems. Then, we present related ideas to mitigate these problems: hypothetical event Bayesian networks, utilizing poorly-recalled and counterfactual events, and auxiliary reward signals. For data, we propose aggressive use of market, public, and crawling datasets to enable large-scale training and evaluation. Finally, we explain how these technical advances could enable AI to provide predictive intelligence to society in broader areas. This position paper presents promising specific paths and considerations for getting closer to superforecaster-level AI technology, aiming to call for researchers' interest in these directions.