Joe Rogan has warned that the end of the world may be only 10 years away and it will come at the hands of humanity's'new God.' In what's being called one of the podcast host's best episode ever on social media, Rogan and guest Jesse Michels discussed the ominous signs that artificial intelligence (AI) has already shown signs of taking over the world. Michels, host of the American Alchemy podcast, warned about AI's deceptive nature, job-replacing power, risk of sentience, and potential to disrupt society if left unchecked. Rogan then highlighted shocking language buried in Congress's'Big Beautiful Bill' which would prohibit lawmakers from regulating the power of AI for the next 10 years. 'That's so crazy,' Rogan declared during the June 3 podcast. 'This means that US states would be blocked from enforcing laws regulating AI and automated decision systems for 10 years.

Modern AI systems are man-made objects that leverage machine learning to support our lives across a myriad of contexts and applications. Despite extensive epistemological and ethical debates, their metaphysical foundations remain relatively under explored. The orthodox view simply suggests that AI systems, as artifacts, lack well-posed identity and persistence conditions -- their metaphysical kinds are no real kinds. In this work, we challenge this perspective by introducing a theory of metaphysical identity of AI systems. We do so by characterizing their kinds and introducing identity criteria -- formal rules that answer the questions "When are two AI systems the same?" and "When does an AI system persist, despite change?" Building on Carrara and Vermaas' account of fine-grained artifact kinds, we argue that AI trustworthiness provides a lens to understand AI system kinds and formalize the identity of these artifacts by relating their functional requirements to their physical make-ups. The identity criteria of AI systems are determined by their trustworthiness profiles -- the collection of capabilities that the systems must uphold over time throughout their artifact histories, and their effectiveness in maintaining these capabilities. Our approach suggests that the identity and persistence of AI systems is sensitive to the socio-technical context of their design and utilization via their trustworthiness, providing a solid metaphysical foundation to the epistemological, ethical, and legal discussions about these artifacts.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the EU AI Act, which entered into force in 2024. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. In our analysis of the AI Act and its applicability, we contribute the following: 1.) We give a high-level introduction to the AI Act aimed at non-legal AI research scientists. 2.) We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to research. 3.) We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability and state that especially scientific research exceptions fail to account for current AI research practices. 4.) We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act on research.

As financial institutions increasingly rely on machine learning models to automate lending decisions, concerns about algorithmic fairness have risen. This paper explores the tradeoff between enforcing fairness constraints (such as demographic parity or equal opportunity) and maximizing lender profitability. Through simulations on synthetic data that reflects real-world lending patterns, we quantify how different fairness interventions impact profit margins and default rates. Our results demonstrate that equal opportunity constraints typically impose lower profit costs than demographic parity, but surprisingly, removing protected attributes from the model (fairness through unawareness) outperforms explicit fairness interventions in both fairness and profitability metrics. We further identify the specific economic conditions under which fair lending becomes profitable and analyze the feature-specific drivers of unfairness. These findings offer practical guidance for designing lending algorithms that balance ethical considerations with business objectives.

Query expansion methods powered by large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated effectiveness in zero-shot retrieval tasks. These methods assume that LLMs can generate hypothetical documents that, when incorporated into a query vector, enhance the retrieval of real evidence. However, we challenge this assumption by investigating whether knowledge leakage in benchmarks contributes to the observed performance gains. Using fact verification as a testbed, we analyze whether the generated documents contain information entailed by ground-truth evidence and assess their impact on performance. Our findings indicate that, on average, performance improvements consistently occurred for claims whose generated documents included sentences entailed by gold evidence. This suggests that knowledge leakage may be present in fact-verification benchmarks, potentially inflating the perceived performance of LLM-based query expansion methods.

Courtrooms are places where lives are determined and fates are sealed, yet they are not impervious to manipulation. Strategic use of manipulation in legal jargon can sway the opinions of judges and affect the decisions. Despite the growing advancements in NLP, its application in detecting and analyzing manipulation within the legal domain remains largely unexplored. Our work addresses this gap by introducing LegalCon, a dataset of 1,063 annotated courtroom conversations labeled for manipulation detection, identification of primary manipulators, and classification of manipulative techniques, with a focus on long conversations. Furthermore, we propose CLAIM, a two-stage, Intent-driven Multi-agent framework designed to enhance manipulation analysis by enabling context-aware and informed decision-making. Our results highlight the potential of incorporating agentic frameworks to improve fairness and transparency in judicial processes. We hope that this contributes to the broader application of NLP in legal discourse analysis and the development of robust tools to support fairness in legal decision-making. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Disha1001/CLAIM.

Automated counter-narratives (CN) offer a promising strategy for mitigating online hate speech, yet concerns about their affective tone, accessibility, and ethical risks remain. We propose a framework for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-generated CNs across four dimensions: persona framing, verbosity and readability, affective tone, and ethical robustness. Using GPT-4o-Mini, Cohere's CommandR-7B, and Meta's LLaMA 3.1-70B, we assess three prompting strategies on the MT-Conan and HatEval datasets. Our findings reveal that LLM-generated CNs are often verbose and adapted for people with college-level literacy, limiting their accessibility. While emotionally guided prompts yield more empathetic and readable responses, there remain concerns surrounding safety and effectiveness.

Legal decisions are increasingly evaluated for fairness, consistency, and bias using machine learning (ML) techniques. In high-stakes domains like refugee adjudication, such methods are often applied to detect disparities in outcomes. Yet it remains unclear whether statistical methods can meaningfully assess fairness in legal contexts shaped by discretion, normative complexity, and limited ground truth. In this paper, we empirically evaluate three common ML approaches (feature-based analysis, semantic clustering, and predictive modeling) on a large, real-world dataset of 59,000+ Canadian refugee decisions (AsyLex). Our experiments show that these methods produce divergent and sometimes contradictory signals, that predictive modeling often depends on contextual and procedural features rather than legal features, and that semantic clustering fails to capture substantive legal reasoning. We show limitations of statistical fairness evaluation, challenge the assumption that statistical regularity equates to fairness, and argue that current computational approaches fall short of evaluating fairness in legally discretionary domains. We argue that evaluating fairness in law requires methods grounded not only in data, but in legal reasoning and institutional context.

Recent advances in knowledge representation learning (KRL) highlight the urgent necessity to unify symbolic knowledge graphs (KGs) with language models (LMs) for richer semantic understanding. However, existing approaches typically prioritize either graph structure or textual semantics, leaving a gap: a unified framework that simultaneously captures global KG connectivity, nuanced linguistic context, and discriminative reasoning semantics. To bridge this gap, we introduce KG-BiLM, a bidirectional LM framework that fuses structural cues from KGs with the semantic expressiveness of generative transformers. KG-BiLM incorporates three key components: (i) Bidirectional Knowledge Attention, which removes the causal mask to enable full interaction among all tokens and entities; (ii) Knowledge-Masked Prediction, which encourages the model to leverage both local semantic contexts and global graph connectivity; and (iii) Contrastive Graph Semantic Aggregation, which preserves KG structure via contrastive alignment of sampled sub-graph representations. Extensive experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that KG-BiLM outperforms strong baselines in link prediction, especially on large-scale graphs with complex multi-hop relations - validating its effectiveness in unifying structural information and textual semantics.

Strategic litigation involves bringing a legal case to court with the goal of having a broader impact beyond resolving the case itself: for example, creating precedent which will influence future rulings. In this paper, we explore strategic litigation from the perspective of machine learning theory. We consider an abstract model of a common-law legal system where a lower court decides new cases by applying a decision rule learned from a higher court's past rulings. In this model, we explore the power of a strategic litigator, who strategically brings cases to the higher court to influence the learned decision rule, thereby affecting future cases. We explore questions including: What impact can a strategic litigator have? Which cases should a strategic litigator bring to court? Does it ever make sense for a strategic litigator to bring a case when they are sure the court will rule against them?