In an unusual twist in the governor's race, a wealthy Democratic businessman is suing former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa over the use of a common phrase in political campaigns. Stephen Cloobeck, a philanthropist and Democratic donor who made his fortune in real estate and hospitality, filed a lawsuit against Villaraigosa this week after the former mayor repeatedly described himself as a "proven problem solver" in campaign materials. Cloobeck, who has applied for a federal trademark of the phrase "I am a proven problem solver," texted the federal lawsuit to Villaraigosa late Tuesday, though the former mayor has not been served yet. The lawsuit argues that Cloobeck has been using the phrase since March 2024, and that "it has acquired extensive goodwill, developed a high degree of distinctiveness, and become famous, well known, and recognized as identifying Cloobeck's campaign." "In light of the fame, acquired goodwill, and overall consumer recognition of [the phrase Cloobeck is seeking to patent, he] is very concerned that the public will likely be confused or mistakenly believe that Villaraigosa's campaign is endorsed, approved, sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or associated with" Villaraigosa, the suit alleges.

Governance institutions must respond to societal risks, including those posed by generative AI. This study empirically examines how public trust in institutions and AI technologies, along with perceived risks, shape preferences for AI regulation. Using the nationally representative 2023 Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, we assess trust in government, AI companies, and AI technologies, as well as public support for regulatory measures such as slowing AI development or outright bans on advanced AI. Our findings reveal broad public support for AI regulation, with risk perception playing a significant role in shaping policy preferences. Individuals with higher trust in government favor regulation, while those with greater trust in AI companies and AI technologies are less inclined to support restrictions. Trust in government and perceived risks significantly predict preferences for both soft (e.g., slowing development) and strong (e.g., banning AI systems) regulatory interventions. These results highlight the importance of public opinion in AI governance. As AI capabilities advance, effective regulation will require balancing public concerns about risks with trust in institutions. This study provides a foundational empirical baseline for policymakers navigating AI governance and underscores the need for further research into public trust, risk perception, and regulatory strategies in the evolving AI landscape.

The creation of effective governance mechanisms for AI agents requires a deeper understanding of their core properties and how these properties relate to questions surrounding the deployment and operation of agents in the world. This paper provides a characterization of AI agents that focuses on four dimensions: autonomy, efficacy, goal complexity, and generality. We propose different gradations for each dimension, and argue that each dimension raises unique questions about the design, operation, and governance of these systems. Moreover, we draw upon this framework to construct "agentic profiles" for different kinds of AI agents. These profiles help to illuminate cross-cutting technical and non-technical governance challenges posed by different classes of AI agents, ranging from narrow task-specific assistants to highly autonomous general-purpose systems. By mapping out key axes of variation and continuity, this framework provides developers, policymakers, and members of the public with the opportunity to develop governance approaches that better align with collective societal goals.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), is being rapidly deployed in recruitment and for candidate shortlisting. We audit several mid-sized open-source LLMs for gender bias using a dataset of 332,044 real-world online job postings. For each posting, we prompt the model to recommend whether an equally qualified male or female candidate should receive an interview callback. We find that most models tend to favor men, especially for higher-wage roles. Mapping job descriptions to the Standard Occupational Classification system, we find lower callback rates for women in male-dominated occupations and higher rates in female-associated ones, indicating occupational segregation. A comprehensive analysis of linguistic features in job ads reveals strong alignment of model recommendations with traditional gender stereotypes. To examine the role of recruiter identity, we steer model behavior by infusing Big Five personality traits and simulating the perspectives of historical figures. We find that less agreeable personas reduce stereotyping, consistent with an agreeableness bias in LLMs. Our findings highlight how AI-driven hiring may perpetuate biases in the labor market and have implications for fairness and diversity within firms.

Augmenting specialised machine learning techniques into traditional graph learning models has achieved notable success across various domains, including federated graph learning, dynamic graph learning, and graph transformers. However, the intricate mechanisms of these specialised techniques introduce significant challenges in maintaining model fairness, potentially resulting in discriminatory outcomes in high-stakes applications such as recommendation systems, disaster response, criminal justice, and loan approval. This paper systematically examines the unique fairness challenges posed by Graph Learning augmented with Machine Learning (GL-ML). It highlights the complex interplay between graph learning mechanisms and machine learning techniques, empha-sising how the augmentation of machine learning both enhances and complicates fairness. Additionally, we explore four critical techniques frequently employed to improve fairness in GL-ML methods. By thoroughly investigating the root causes and broader implications of fairness challenges in this rapidly evolving field, this work establishes a robust foundation for future research and innovation in GL-ML fairness.

Wildlife trafficking remains a critical global issue, significantly impacting biodiversity, ecological stability, and public health. Despite efforts to combat this illicit trade, the rise of e-commerce platforms has made it easier to sell wildlife products, putting new pressure on wild populations of endangered and threatened species. The use of these platforms also opens a new opportunity: as criminals sell wildlife products online, they leave digital traces of their activity that can provide insights into trafficking activities as well as how they can be disrupted. The challenge lies in finding these traces. Online marketplaces publish ads for a plethora of products, and identifying ads for wildlife-related products is like finding a needle in a haystack. Learning classifiers can automate ad identification, but creating them requires costly, time-consuming data labeling that hinders support for diverse ads and research questions. This paper addresses a critical challenge in the data science pipeline for wildlife trafficking analytics: generating quality labeled data for classifiers that select relevant data. While large language models (LLMs) can directly label advertisements, doing so at scale is prohibitively expensive. We propose a cost-effective strategy that leverages LLMs to generate pseudo labels for a small sample of the data and uses these labels to create specialized classification models. Our novel method automatically gathers diverse and representative samples to be labeled while minimizing the labeling costs. Our experimental evaluation shows that our classifiers achieve up to 95% F1 score, outperforming LLMs at a lower cost. We present real use cases that demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in enabling analyses of different aspects of wildlife trafficking.

Despite the recent advances in Large Language Models, benchmarks for evaluating legal writing remain scarce due to the inherent complexity of assessing open-ended responses in this domain. One of the key challenges in evaluating language models on domain-specific tasks is finding test datasets that are public, frequently updated, and contain comprehensive evaluation guidelines. The Brazilian Bar Examination meets these requirements. We introduce oab-bench, a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam. The benchmark includes comprehensive evaluation guidelines and reference materials used by human examiners to ensure consistent grading. We evaluate the performance of four LLMs on oab-bench, finding that Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams. We also investigated whether LLMs can serve as reliable automated judges for evaluating legal writing. Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams, suggesting their potential as reliable automated evaluators despite the inherently subjective nature of legal writing assessment. The source code and the benchmark -- containing questions, evaluation guidelines, model-generated responses, and their respective automated evaluations -- are publicly available.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful but often require extensive fine-tuning and large datasets for specialized domains like law. General-purpose pre-training may not capture legal nuances, and acquiring sufficient legal data is challenging. We introduce SynLexLM, a novel approach to efficiently pre-train a legal LLM. Our method employs curriculum learning, progressing from simple to complex legal texts and queries, combined with synthetic data augmentation using models like Gemini Pro to address data scarcity. We aim to achieve improved performance on legal benchmarks (BigLaw-Bench, EUR-Lex-Sum) compared to traditional models and fine-tuned versions. Preliminary work involves generating synthetic QA pairs reflecting legal reasoning. This work aims to enhance legal document analysis and research tools, potentially democratizing access to advanced legal AI.

A study that used artificial intelligence–generated content to "participate" in online discussions and test whether AI was more successful at changing people's minds than human-generated content has caused an uproar because of ethical concerns about the work. This week some of the unwitting research participants publicly asked the University of Zürich (UZH), where the researchers behind the experiment hold positions, to investigate and apologize. "I think people have a reasonable expectation to not be in scientific experiments without their consent," says Casey Fiesler, an expert on internet research ethics at the University of Colorado Boulder. A university statement emailed to Science says the researchers--who remain anonymous--have decided not to publish their results. The university will investigate the incident, the statement says.

Understanding how news narratives frame entities is crucial for studying media's impact on societal perceptions of events. In this paper, we evaluate the zero-shot capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in classifying framing roles. Through systematic experimentation, we assess the effects of input context, prompting strategies, and task decomposition. Our findings show that a hierarchical approach of first identifying broad roles and then fine-grained roles, outperforms single-step classification. We also demonstrate that optimal input contexts and prompts vary across task levels, highlighting the need for subtask-specific strategies. We achieve a Main Role Accuracy of 89.4% and an Exact Match Ratio of 34.5%, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailored prompt design and input context optimization for improving LLM performance in entity framing.