The social media platform Reddit has sued the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, alleging that it is illegally "scraping" the comments of Reddit users to train its chatbot Claude. Reddit claims that Anthropic has used automated bots to access the social network's content despite being asked not to do so, and "intentionally trained on the personal data of Reddit users without ever requesting their consent". Anthropic did not immediately return a request for comment. The claim was filed on Wednesday in the superior court of California in San Francisco. "AI companies should not be allowed to scrape information and content from people without clear limitations on how they can use that data," said Ben Lee, Reddit's chief legal officer, in a statement on Wednesday.

Hosted by Ben Byford, The Machine Ethics Podcast brings together interviews with academics, authors, business leaders, designers and engineers on the subject of autonomous algorithms, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and technology's impact on society. This is our 100th episode! A super special look at AI and the environment, we interviewed four experts for this DeepDive episode. We chatted about water stress, the energy usage of AI systems and data centres, using AI for fossil fuel discovery, the geo-political nature of AI, GenAI vs other ML algorithms for energy use, demanding transparency on energy usage for training and operating AI, more AI regulation for carbon consumption, things we can change today like picking renewable hosting solutions, publishing your data, when doing "responsible AI" you must include the environment, considering who are the controllers of the technology and what do they want, and more… Hannah Smith is Director of Operations for Green Web Foundation and co-founder of Green Tech South West. She has a background in Computer Science.

Machine unlearning (MU) aims to expunge a designated forget set from a trained model without costly retraining, yet the existing techniques overlook two critical blind spots: "over-unlearning" that deteriorates retained data near the forget set, and post-hoc "relearning" attacks that aim to resurrect the forgotten knowledge. We first derive the over-unlearning metric OU@ε, which represents the collateral damage to the nearby region of the forget set, where the over-unlearning mainly appears. Next, we expose an unforeseen relearning threat on MU, i.e., the Prototypical Relearning Attack, which exploits the per-class prototype of the forget class with just a few samples, and easily restores the pre-unlearning performance. To counter both blind spots, we introduce Spotter, a plug-and-play objective that combines (i) a masked knowledge-distillation penalty on the nearby region of forget set to suppress OU@ε, and (ii) an intra-class dispersion loss that scatters forget-class embeddings, neutralizing prototypical relearning attacks. On CIFAR-10, as one of validations, Spotter reduces OU@εby below the 0.05X of the baseline, drives forget accuracy to 0%, preserves accuracy of the retain set within 1% of difference with the original, and denies the prototype-attack by keeping the forget set accuracy within <1%, without accessing retained data. It confirms that Spotter is a practical remedy of the unlearning's blind spots.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in complex legal tasks like argument generation, yet their reliability remains a concern. Building upon pilot work assessing LLM generation of 3-ply legal arguments using human evaluation, this paper introduces an automated pipeline to evaluate LLM performance on this task, specifically focusing on faithfulness (absence of hallucination), factor utilization, and appropriate abstention. We define hallucination as the generation of factors not present in the input case materials and abstention as the model's ability to refrain from generating arguments when instructed and no factual basis exists. Our automated method employs an external LLM to extract factors from generated arguments and compares them against the ground-truth factors provided in the input case triples (current case and two precedent cases). We evaluated eight distinct LLMs on three tests of increasing difficulty: 1) generating a standard 3-ply argument, 2) generating an argument with swapped precedent roles, and 3) recognizing the impossibility of argument generation due to lack of shared factors and abstaining. Our findings indicate that while current LLMs achieve high accuracy (over 90%) in avoiding hallucination on viable argument generation tests (Tests 1 & 2), they often fail to utilize the full set of relevant factors present in the cases. Critically, on the abstention test (Test 3), most models failed to follow instructions to stop, instead generating spurious arguments despite the lack of common factors. This automated pipeline provides a scalable method for assessing these crucial LLM behaviors, highlighting the need for improvements in factor utilization and robust abstention capabilities before reliable deployment in legal settings. Link: https://lizhang-aiandlaw.github.io/An-Automated-Pipeline-for-Evaluating-LLM-Generated-3-ply-Case-Based-Legal-Arguments/

Current AI benchmarks miss the messy, multi-turn nature of human-AI collaboration. We present an evaluation framework that decomposes real-world tasks into interdependent subtasks, letting us track both LLM performance and users' strategies across a dialogue. Complementing this framework, we develop a suite of metrics, including a composite usage derived from semantic similarity, word overlap, and numerical matches; structural coherence; intra-turn diversity; and a novel measure of the "information frontier" reflecting the alignment between AI outputs and users' working knowledge. We demonstrate our methodology in a financial valuation task that mirrors real-world complexity. Our empirical findings reveal that while greater integration of LLM-generated content generally enhances output quality, its benefits are moderated by factors such as response incoherence, excessive subtask diversity, and the distance of provided information from users' existing knowledge. These results suggest that proactive dialogue strategies designed to inject novelty may inadvertently undermine task performance. Our work thus advances a more holistic evaluation of human-AI collaboration, offering both a robust methodological framework and actionable insights for developing more effective AI-augmented work processes.

Foundation Models (FMs) such as Large Language Models (LLMs) are reshaping the software industry by enabling FMware, systems that integrate these FMs as core components. In this KDD 2025 tutorial, we present a comprehensive exploration of FMware that combines a curated catalogue of challenges with real-world production concerns. We first discuss the state of research and practice in building FMware. We further examine the difficulties in selecting suitable models, aligning high-quality domain-specific data, engineering robust prompts, and orchestrating autonomous agents. We then address the complex journey from impressive demos to production-ready systems by outlining issues in system testing, optimization, deployment, and integration with legacy software. Drawing on our industrial experience and recent research in the area, we provide actionable insights and a technology roadmap for overcoming these challenges. Attendees will gain practical strategies to enable the creation of trustworthy FMware in the evolving technology landscape.

Large language models (LLMs) are foundational explorations to artificial general intelligence, yet their alignment with human values via instruction tuning and preference learning achieves only superficial compliance. Here, we demonstrate that harmful knowledge embedded during pretraining persists as indelible "dark patterns" in LLMs' parametric memory, evading alignment safeguards and resurfacing under adversarial inducement at distributional shifts. In this study, we first theoretically analyze the intrinsic ethical vulnerability of aligned LLMs by proving that current alignment methods yield only local "safety regions" in the knowledge manifold. In contrast, pretrained knowledge remains globally connected to harmful concepts via high-likelihood adversarial trajectories. Building on this theoretical insight, we empirically validate our findings by employing semantic coherence inducement under distributional shifts--a method that systematically bypasses alignment constraints through optimized adversarial prompts. This combined theoretical and empirical approach achieves a 100% attack success rate across 19 out of 23 state-of-the-art aligned LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1 and LLaMA-3, revealing their universal vulnerabilities.

Foundation models (FMs) face a critical safety challenge: as capabilities scale, instrumental convergence drives default trajectories toward loss of human control, potentially culminating in existential catastrophe. Current alignment approaches struggle with value specification complexity and fail to address emergent power-seeking behaviors. We propose "Corrigibility as a Singular Target" (CAST)-designing FMs whose overriding objective is empowering designated human principals to guide, correct, and control them. This paradigm shift from static value-loading to dynamic human empowerment transforms instrumental drives: self-preservation serves only to maintain the principal's control; goal modification becomes facilitating principal guidance. We present a comprehensive empirical research agenda spanning training methodologies (RLAIF, SFT, synthetic data generation), scalability testing across model sizes, and demonstrations of controlled instructability. Our vision: FMs that become increasingly responsive to human guidance as capabilities grow, offering a path to beneficial AI that remains as tool-like as possible, rather than supplanting human judgment. This addresses the core alignment problem at its source, preventing the default trajectory toward misaligned instrumental convergence.

The assessment of legal problems requires the consideration of a specific legal system and its levels of abstraction, from constitutional law to statutory law to case law. The extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize such legal systems is unknown. In this paper, we propose and investigate different approaches to condition LLMs at different levels of abstraction in legal systems. This paper examines different approaches to conditioning LLMs at multiple levels of abstraction in legal systems to detect potentially punishable hate speech. We focus on the task of classifying whether a specific social media posts falls under the criminal offense of incitement to hatred as prescribed by the German Criminal Code. The results show that there is still a significant performance gap between models and legal experts in the legal assessment of hate speech, regardless of the level of abstraction with which the models were conditioned. Our analysis revealed, that models conditioned on abstract legal knowledge lacked deep task understanding, often contradicting themselves and hallucinating answers, while models using concrete legal knowledge performed reasonably well in identifying relevant target groups, but struggled with classifying target conducts.

Privacy policies inform users about data collection and usage, yet their complexity limits accessibility for diverse populations. Existing Privacy Policy Question Answering (QA) systems exhibit performance disparities across English dialects, disadvantaging speakers of non-standard varieties. We propose a novel multi-agent framework inspired by human-centered design principles to mitigate dialectal biases. Our approach integrates a Dialect Agent, which translates queries into Standard American English (SAE) while preserving dialectal intent, and a Privacy Policy Agent, which refines predictions using domain expertise. Unlike prior approaches, our method does not require retraining or dialect-specific fine-tuning, making it broadly applicable across models and domains. Evaluated on PrivacyQA and PolicyQA, our framework improves GPT-4o-mini's zero-shot accuracy from 0.394 to 0.601 on PrivacyQA and from 0.352 to 0.464 on PolicyQA, surpassing or matching few-shot baselines without additional training data. These results highlight the effectiveness of structured agent collaboration in mitigating dialect biases and underscore the importance of designing NLP systems that account for linguistic diversity to ensure equitable access to privacy information.