Editor's note: This analysis is part of The Atlantic's investigation into the Library Genesis data set. You can access the search tool directly here. Find The Atlantic's search tool for movie and television writing used to train AI here. When employees at Meta started developing their flagship AI model, Llama 3, they faced a simple ethical question. The program would need to be trained on a huge amount of high-quality writing to be competitive with products such as ChatGPT, and acquiring all of that text legally could take time.

Artificial intelligence has to date been enlisted as a bogeyman in cultural circles: Software will take the jobs of writers and translators, and AI-generated images ring the death toll for illustrators and graphic designers. Yet there's a corner of high culture where AI is taking on a starring role as hero, not displacing the traditional protagonists--art experts and conservators--but adding a powerful, compelling weapon to their arsenal when it comes to fighting forgeries and misattributions. AI is already exceptionally good at recognizing and authenticating an artist's work, based on the analysis of a digital image of a painting alone. AI's objective analysis has thrown a wrench into this traditional hierarchy. If an algorithm can determine the authorship of an artwork with statistical probability, where does that leave the old-guard art historians whose reputations have been built on their subjective expertise?

The increasing integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in digital ecosystems has reshaped privacy dynamics, particularly for young digital citizens navigating data-driven environments. This study explores evolving privacy concerns across three key stakeholder groups, digital citizens (ages 16-19), parents/educators, and AI professionals, and assesses differences in data ownership, trust, transparency, parental mediation, education, and risk-benefit perceptions. Employing a grounded theory methodology, this research synthesizes insights from 482 participants through structured surveys, qualitative interviews, and focus groups. The findings reveal distinct privacy expectations: Young users emphasize autonomy and digital freedom, while parents and educators advocate for regulatory oversight and AI literacy programs. AI professionals, in contrast, prioritize the balance between ethical system design and technological efficiency. The data further highlights gaps in AI literacy and transparency, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, stakeholder-driven privacy frameworks that accommodate diverse user needs. Using comparative thematic analysis, this study identifies key tensions in privacy governance and develops the novel Privacy-Ethics Alignment in AI (PEA-AI) model, which structures privacy decision-making as a dynamic negotiation between stakeholders. By systematically analyzing themes such as transparency, user control, risk perception, and parental mediation, this research provides a scalable, adaptive foundation for AI governance, ensuring that privacy protections evolve alongside emerging AI technologies and youth-centric digital interactions.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced text generation capabilities, yet evaluating their performance in generative writing remains a challenge. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on generic text generation or limited in writing tasks, failing to capture the diverse requirements of high-quality written contents across various domains. To bridge this gap, we present WritingBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs across 6 core writing domains and 100 subdomains, encompassing creative, persuasive, informative, and technical writing. We further propose a query-dependent evaluation framework that empowers LLMs to dynamically generate instance-specific assessment criteria. This framework is complemented by a fine-tuned critic model for criteria-aware scoring, enabling evaluations in style, format and length. The framework's validity is further demonstrated by its data curation capability, which enables 7B-parameter models to approach state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance. We open-source the benchmark, along with evaluation tools and modular framework components, to advance the development of LLMs in writing.

While detecting and avoiding bias in LLM-generated text is becoming increasingly important, media bias often remains subtle and subjective, making it particularly difficult to identify and mitigate. In this study, we assess media bias in LLM-generated content and LLMs' ability to detect subtle ideological bias. We conduct this evaluation using two datasets, PoliGen and EconoLex, covering political and economic discourse, respectively. We evaluate eight widely used LLMs by prompting them to generate articles and analyze their ideological preferences via self-assessment. By using self-assessment, the study aims to directly measure the models' biases rather than relying on external interpretations, thereby minimizing subjective judgments about media bias. Our results reveal a consistent preference of Democratic over Republican positions across all models. Conversely, in economic topics, biases vary among Western LLMs, while those developed in China lean more strongly toward socialism.

The fundamental problem of toxicity detection lies in the fact that the term "toxicity" is ill-defined. Such uncertainty causes researchers to rely on subjective and vague data during model training, which leads to non-robust and inaccurate results, following the 'garbage in - garbage out' paradigm. This study introduces a novel, objective, and context-aware framework for toxicity detection, leveraging stress levels as a key determinant of toxicity. We propose new definition, metric and training approach as a parts of our framework and demonstrate it's effectiveness using a dataset we collected.

In particular, the ChatGPT model (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) [1] has demonstrated its potential to generate human-like conversational abilities, enabling it to engage in meaningful dialogues, answer questions, and generate text across a wide range of topics, including science, entertainment, and politics [13, 14, 20]. The ability of these models to generate coherent and contextually relevant text has made them a powerful tool for content creation and enabling new ways of human-machine interactions. Despite their potential benefits, the widespread adoption of LLMs has raised concerns about their potential misuse, particularly in generating disinformation [16, 23, 25], fake news [11, 27], and hate speech [10, 22]. Beyond these widely recognized concerns, another critical issue has gained increasing attention in recent months: the potential of these models to manipulate public opinion, both due to the inherent biases embedded in their training process and the biases deliberately introduced or reinforced by their developers or maintainers. The most modern LLMs designed to interact with humans are generally trained using at least two phases. First, they are trained on large-scale text corpora, which inevitably incorporate the ideological, cultural, and political perspectives present in the source.

This paper introduces JuDGE (Judgment Document Generation Evaluation), a novel benchmark for evaluating the performance of judgment document generation in the Chinese legal system. We define the task as generating a complete legal judgment document from the given factual description of the case. To facilitate this benchmark, we construct a comprehensive dataset consisting of factual descriptions from real legal cases, paired with their corresponding full judgment documents, which serve as the ground truth for evaluating the quality of generated documents. This dataset is further augmented by two external legal corpora that provide additional legal knowledge for the task: one comprising statutes and regulations, and the other consisting of a large collection of past judgment documents. In collaboration with legal professionals, we establish a comprehensive automated evaluation framework to assess the quality of generated judgment documents across various dimensions. We evaluate various baseline approaches, including few-shot in-context learning, fine-tuning, and a multi-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, using both general and legal-domain LLMs. The experimental results demonstrate that, while RAG approaches can effectively improve performance in this task, there is still substantial room for further improvement. All the codes and datasets are available at: https://github.com/oneal2000/JuDGE.

Recently, Test-Time Scaling Large Language Models (LLMs), such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1, have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across various domains and tasks, particularly in reasoning. While these models have shown impressive performance on general language tasks, their effectiveness in specialized fields like legal remains unclear. To address this, we present a preliminary evaluation of LLMs in various legal scenarios, covering both Chinese and English legal tasks. Our analysis includes 9 LLMs and 17 legal tasks, with a focus on newly published and more complex challenges such as multi-defendant legal judgments and legal argument reasoning. Our findings indicate that, despite DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI o1 being among the most powerful models, their legal reasoning capabilities are still lacking. Specifically, these models score below 80\% on seven Chinese legal reasoning tasks and below 80\% on two English legal reasoning tasks. This suggests that, even among the most advanced reasoning models, legal reasoning abilities remain underdeveloped.

Memory, additional information beyond the training of large language models (LLMs), is crucial to various real-world applications, such as personal assistant. The two mainstream solutions to incorporate memory into the generation process are long-context LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). In this paper, we first systematically compare these two types of solutions on three renovated/new datasets and show that (1) long-context solutions, although more expensive, shall be easier to capture the big picture and better answer queries which require considering the memory as a whole; and (2) when the queries concern specific information, RAG solutions shall be more competitive especially when the keywords can be explicitly matched. Therefore, we propose a novel method RAG-Tuned-LLM which fine-tunes a relative small (e.g., 7B) LLM using the data generated following the RAG principles, so it can combine the advantages of both solutions. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate that RAG-Tuned-LLM can beat long-context LLMs and RAG methods across a wide range of query types.