Argument mining (AM) is an interdisciplinary research field that integrates insights from logic, philosophy, linguistics, rhetoric, law, psychology, and computer science. It involves the automatic identification and extraction of argumentative components, such as premises and claims, and the detection of relationships between them, such as support, attack, or neutrality. Recently, the field has advanced significantly, especially with the advent of large language models (LLMs), which have enhanced the efficiency of analyzing and extracting argument semantics compared to traditional methods and other deep learning models. There are many benchmarks for testing and verifying the quality of LLM, but there is still a lack of research and results on the operation of these models in publicly available argument classification databases. This paper presents a study of a selection of LLM's, using diverse datasets such as Args.me and UKP. The models tested include versions of GPT, Llama, and DeepSeek, along with reasoning-enhanced variants incorporating the Chain-of-Thoughts algorithm. The results indicate that ChatGPT-4o outperforms the others in the argument classification benchmarks. In case of models incorporated with reasoning capabilities, the Deepseek-R1 shows its superiority. However, despite their superiority, GPT-4o and Deepseek-R1 still make errors. The most common errors are discussed for all models. To our knowledge, the presented work is the first broader analysis of the mentioned datasets using LLM and prompt algorithms. The work also shows some weaknesses of known prompt algorithms in argument analysis, while indicating directions for their improvement. The added value of the work is the in-depth analysis of the available argument datasets and the demonstration of their shortcomings.

The paper explores stylometry as a method to distinguish between texts created by Large Language Models (LLMs) and humans, addressing issues of model attribution, intellectual property, and ethical AI use. Stylometry has been used extensively to characterise the style and attribute authorship of texts. By applying it to LLM-generated texts, we identify their emergent writing patterns. The paper involves creating a benchmark dataset based on Wikipedia, with (a) human-written term summaries, (b) texts generated purely by LLMs (GPT-3.5/4, LLaMa 2/3, Orca, and Falcon), (c) processed through multiple text summarisation methods (T5, BART, Gensim, and Sumy), and (d) rephrasing methods (Dipper, T5). The 10-sentence long texts were classified by tree-based models (decision trees and LightGBM) using human-designed (StyloMetrix) and n-gram-based (our own pipeline) stylometric features that encode lexical, grammatical, syntactic, and punctuation patterns. The cross-validated results reached a performance of up to .87 Matthews correlation coefficient in the multiclass scenario with 7 classes, and accuracy between .79 and 1. in binary classification, with the particular example of Wikipedia and GPT-4 reaching up to .98 accuracy on a balanced dataset. Shapley Additive Explanations pinpointed features characteristic of the encyclopaedic text type, individual overused words, as well as a greater grammatical standardisation of LLMs with respect to human-written texts. These results show -- crucially, in the context of the increasingly sophisticated LLMs -- that it is possible to distinguish machine- from human-generated texts at least for a well-defined text type.

This chapter introduces a conceptual framework for qualitative risk assessment of AI, particularly in the context of the EU AI Act. The framework addresses the complexities of legal compliance and fundamental rights protection by itegrating definitional balancing and defeasible reasoning. Definitional balancing employs proportionality analysis to resolve conflicts between competing rights, while defeasible reasoning accommodates the dynamic nature of legal decision-making. Our approach stresses the need for an analysis of AI deployment scenarios and for identifying potential legal violations and multi-layered impacts on fundamental rights. On the basis of this analysis, we provide philosophical foundations for a logical account of AI risk analysis. In particular, we consider the basic building blocks for conceptually grasping the interaction between AI deployment scenarios and fundamental rights, incorporating in defeasible reasoning definitional balancing and arguments about the contextual promotion or demotion of rights. This layered approach allows for more operative models of assessment of both high-risk AI systems and General Purpose AI (GPAI) systems, emphasizing the broader applicability of the latter. Future work aims to develop a formal model and effective algorithms to enhance AI risk assessment, bridging theoretical insights with practical applications to support responsible AI governance.

It found that the security giant Evolv lied about the accuracy of its AI-powered security checkpoints, which are used in stadiums and schools but failed to catch a seven-inch knife that was ultimately used to stab a student. It went after the facial recognition company Intellivision, saying the company made unfounded claims that its tools operated without gender or racial bias. It fined startups promising bogus "AI lawyer" services and one that sold fake product reviews generated with AI. These actions did not result in fines that crippled the companies, but they did stop them from making false statements and offered customers ways to recover their money or get out of contracts. In each case, the FTC found, everyday people had been harmed by AI companies that let their technologies run amok.

Understanding socio-ecological systems requires insights from diverse stakeholder perspectives, which are often hard to access. To enable alternative, simulation-based exploration of different stakeholder perspectives, we develop the HoPeS (Human-Oriented Perspective Shifting) modelling framework. HoPeS employs agents powered by large language models (LLMs) to represent various stakeholders; users can step into the agent roles to experience perspectival differences. A simulation protocol serves as a "scaffold" to streamline multiple perspective-taking simulations, supporting users in reflecting on, transitioning between, and integrating across perspectives. A prototype system is developed to demonstrate HoPeS in the context of institutional dynamics and land use change, enabling both narrative-driven and numerical experiments. In an illustrative experiment, a user successively adopts the perspectives of a system observer and a researcher - a role that analyses data from the embedded land use model to inform evidence-based decision-making for other LLM agents representing various institutions. Despite the user's effort to recommend technically sound policies, discrepancies persist between the policy recommendation and implementation due to stakeholders' competing advocacies, mirroring real-world misalignment between researcher and policymaker perspectives. The user's reflection highlights the subjective feelings of frustration and disappointment as a researcher, especially due to the challenge of maintaining political neutrality while attempting to gain political influence. Despite this, the user exhibits high motivation to experiment with alternative narrative framing strategies, suggesting the system's potential in exploring different perspectives. Further system and protocol refinement are likely to enable new forms of interdisciplinary collaboration in socio-ecological simulations.

This report provides a detailed comparison between the Safety and Security measures proposed in the EU AI Act's General-Purpose AI (GPAI) Code of Practice (Third Draft) and the current commitments and practices voluntarily adopted by leading AI companies. As the EU moves toward enforcing binding obligations for GPAI model providers, the Code of Practice will be key for bridging legal requirements with concrete technical commitments. Our analysis focuses on the draft's Safety and Security section (Commitments II.1-II.16), documenting excerpts from current public-facing documents that are relevant to each individual measure. We systematically reviewed different document types, such as companies' frontier safety frameworks and model cards, from over a dozen companies, including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and others. This report is not meant to be an indication of legal compliance, nor does it take any prescriptive viewpoint about the Code of Practice or companies' policies. Instead, it aims to inform the ongoing dialogue between regulators and General-Purpose AI model providers by surfacing evidence of industry precedent for various measures. Nonetheless, we were able to find relevant quotes from at least 5 companies' documents for the majority of the measures in Commitments II.1-II.16.

Recent advances in code large language models (CodeLLMs) have made them indispensable tools in modern software engineering. However, these models occasionally produce outputs that contain proprietary or sensitive code snippets, raising concerns about potential non-compliant use of training data, and posing risks to privacy and intellectual property. To ensure responsible and compliant deployment of CodeLLMs, training data detection (TDD) has become a critical task. While recent TDD methods have shown promise in natural language settings, their effectiveness on code data remains largely underexplored. This gap is particularly important given code's structured syntax and distinct similarity criteria compared to natural language. To address this, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study of seven state-of-the-art TDD methods on source code data, evaluating their performance across eight CodeLLMs. To support this evaluation, we introduce CodeSnitch, a function-level benchmark dataset comprising 9,000 code samples in three programming languages, each explicitly labeled as either included or excluded from CodeLLM training. Beyond evaluation on the original CodeSnitch, we design targeted mutation strategies to test the robustness of TDD methods under three distinct settings. These mutation strategies are grounded in the well-established Type-1 to Type-4 code clone detection taxonomy. Our study provides a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and offers insights to guide the development of more effective and robust detection methods in the future.

The exponential growth of video content has made personalized video highlighting an essential task, as user preferences are highly variable and complex. Existing video datasets, however, often lack personalization, relying on isolated videos or simple text queries that fail to capture the intricacies of user behavior. In this work, we introduce HIPPO-Video, a novel dataset for personalized video highlighting, created using an LLM-based user simulator to generate realistic watch histories reflecting diverse user preferences. The dataset includes 2,040 (watch history, saliency score) pairs, covering 20,400 videos across 170 semantic categories. To validate our dataset, we propose HiPHer, a method that leverages these personalized watch histories to predict preference-conditioned segment-wise saliency scores. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our method outperforms existing generic and query-based approaches, showcasing its potential for highly user-centric video highlighting in real-world scenarios.

"You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every single article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for," Trump said. "We appreciate that, but just can't do it-- because it's not doable." The president also doubled down on his anti-woke rhetoric in his speech. "We are getting rid of woke," he said on Wednesday. "The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models." The remarks came during a keynote speech at a summit hosted by the All-In Podcast and the Hill & Valley Forum.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has unveiled its new artificial intelligence action plan, which includes a strategy it says will boost the US standing in AI as it competes with China for dominance in the rapidly growing sector. The White House released the 25-page "America's AI Action Plan" on Wednesday. It includes 90 different policy proposals that the administration says will increase AI tools for allies around the globe. It will also promote production of new data centres around the US. It will scrap federal regulations that "hinder AI development", although it is not clear which regulations are in question.