Ensuring ethical behavior in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems amidst their increasing ubiquity and influence is a major concern the world over. The use of formal methods in AI ethics is a possible crucial approach for specifying and verifying the ethical behavior of AI systems. This paper proposes a formalization based on deontic logic to define and evaluate the ethical behavior of AI systems, focusing on system-level specifications, contributing to this important goal. It introduces axioms and theorems to capture ethical requirements related to fairness and explainability. The formalization incorporates temporal operators to reason about the ethical behavior of AI systems over time. The authors evaluate the effectiveness of this formalization by assessing the ethics of the real-world COMPAS and loan prediction AI systems. Various ethical properties of the COMPAS and loan prediction systems are encoded using deontic logical formulas, allowing the use of an automated theorem prover to verify whether these systems satisfy the defined properties. The formal verification reveals that both systems fail to fulfill certain key ethical properties related to fairness and non-discrimination, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed formalization in identifying potential ethical issues in real-world AI applications.

Advancements in NLP research have been greatly Given all these elements, the information propelled by large language models (LLMs), which on particular details about how to formalize an have showcased exceptional abilities (Zhao et al., effective human-model cooperation to achieve 2023; Laskar et al., 2024). These advancements are collective outputs is rather under-specified and paving the way for the development of AI models scattered. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic that can behave as autonomous agents, working analysis of the underlying principles and alongside humans to tackle intricate tasks. These formalizations of human-model cooperation is still models, for example, can cooperate with humans absent. This gap in understanding presents a significant on data annotation (Klie et al., 2020; Li et al., opportunity for advancement, enabling us 2023a; Huang et al., 2024c), information seeking to develop a deeper understanding of the fundamental (Deng et al., 2023a; Wang et al., 2023b; Zhang basics that govern the effective cooperation et al., 2024d), creative writing (Padmakumar and between humans and intelligent models. He, 2022; Akoury et al., 2020) and real-world problem To fill this gap, in this survey, we take the first solving (Mehta et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2024; step to summarize the principles, formalizations, Qian et al., 2024).

Context. The security of critical infrastructure has been a pressing concern since the advent of computers and has become even more critical in today's era of cyber warfare. Protecting mission-critical systems (MCSs), essential for national security, requires swift and robust governance, yet recent events reveal the increasing difficulty of meeting these challenges. Aim. Building on prior research showcasing the potential of Generative AI (GAI), such as Large Language Models, in enhancing risk analysis, we aim to explore practitioners' views on integrating GAI into the governance of IT MCSs. Our goal is to provide actionable insights and recommendations for stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Method. We designed a survey to collect practical experiences, concerns, and expectations of practitioners who develop and implement security solutions in the context of MCSs. Conclusions and Future Works. Our findings highlight that the safe use of LLMs in MCS governance requires interdisciplinary collaboration. Researchers should focus on designing regulation-oriented models and focus on accountability; practitioners emphasize data protection and transparency, while policymakers must establish a unified AI framework with global benchmarks to ensure ethical and secure LLMs-based MCS governance.

The advancements in generative AI inevitably raise concerns about their risks and safety implications, which, in return, catalyzes significant progress in AI safety. However, as this field continues to evolve, a critical question arises: are our current efforts on AI safety aligned with the advancements of AI as well as the long-term goal of human civilization? This paper presents a blueprint for an advanced human society and leverages this vision to guide current AI safety efforts. It outlines a future where the Internet of Everything becomes reality, and creates a roadmap of significant technological advancements towards this envisioned future. For each stage of the advancements, this paper forecasts potential AI safety issues that humanity may face. By projecting current efforts against this blueprint, this paper examines the alignment between the current efforts and the long-term needs, and highlights unique challenges and missions that demand increasing attention from AI safety practitioners in the 2020s. This vision paper aims to offer a broader perspective on AI safety, emphasizing that our current efforts should not only address immediate concerns but also anticipate potential risks in the expanding AI landscape, thereby promoting a safe and sustainable future of AI and human civilization.

Against the company's wishes, a court unredacted information alleging that Meta used Library Genesis (LibGen), a notorious so-called shadow library of pirated books that originated in Russia, to help train its generative AI language models. Its outcome, along with those of dozens of similar cases working their way through courts in the United States, will determine whether technology companies can legally use creative works to train AI moving forward and could either entrench AI's most powerful players or derail them. Vince Chhabria, a judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered both Meta and the plaintiffs on Wednesday to file full versions of a batch of documents after calling Meta's approach to redacting them "preposterous," adding that, for the most part, "there is not a single thing in those briefs that should be sealed." Chhabria ruled that Meta was not pushing to redact the materials in order to protect its business interests but instead to "avoid negative publicity." The documents were originally filed late last year but remained publicly unavailable until now.

Would you trust an artificial intelligence software to make a diagnosis for you? Most people would answer negatively to this question. Indeed, despite the significant advancements of AI and neural networks, their "black box" nature is a significant barrier to our trust. The inability to understand how or why a model arrives at its conclusions leaves many skeptical about its use, particularly in sensitive areas like healthcare, finance, or legal systems. This is where Explainable AI (XAI) comes into play, a research area focused on interpreting AI models' predictions.

Now Bores hopes to revive the battle. The main provisions in the RAISE Act include requiring AI companies to develop safety plans for the development and deployment of their models. The bill also provides protections for whistleblowers at AI companies. It forbids retaliation against an employee who shares information about an AI model in the belief that it may cause "critical harm"; such whistleblowers can report the information to the New York attorney general. One way the bill defines critical harm is the use of an AI model to create a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapon that results in the death or serious injury of 100 or more people.

The success of social media platforms has facilitated the emergence of various forms of online abuse within digital communities. This abuse manifests in multiple ways, including hate speech, cyberbullying, emotional abuse, grooming, and sexting. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the different forms of abuse prevalent in social media, with a particular focus on how emerging technologies, such as Language Models (LMs) and Large Language Models (LLMs), are reshaping both the detection and generation of abusive content within these networks. We delve into the mechanisms through which social media abuse is perpetuated, exploring the psychological and social impact. Additionally, we examine the dual role of advanced language models-highlighting their potential to enhance automated detection systems for abusive behavior while also acknowledging their capacity to generate harmful content. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on online safety and ethics, offering insights into the evolving landscape of cyberabuse and the technological innovations that both mitigate and exacerbate it.

Explainable AI (XAI) provides methods to understand non-interpretable machine learning models. However, we have little knowledge about what legal experts expect from these explanations, including their legal compliance with, and value against European Union legislation. To close this gap, we present the Explanation Dialogues, an expert focus study to uncover the expectations, reasoning, and understanding of legal experts and practitioners towards XAI, with a specific focus on the European General Data Protection Regulation. The study consists of an online questionnaire and follow-up interviews, and is centered around a use-case in the credit domain. We extract both a set of hierarchical and interconnected codes using grounded theory, and present the standpoints of the participating experts towards XAI. We find that the presented explanations are hard to understand and lack information, and discuss issues that can arise from the different interests of the data controller and subject. Finally, we present a set of recommendations for developers of XAI methods, and indications of legal areas of discussion. Among others, recommendations address the presentation, choice, and content of an explanation, technical risks as well as the end-user, while we provide legal pointers to the contestability of explanations, transparency thresholds, intellectual property rights as well as the relationship between involved parties.

Expanding the frame of evaluation to include other parties, as well as the ecosystem in which the system is deployed, leads us to a multistakeholder view of recommender system evaluation as defined in [2]: "A multistakeholder evaluation is one in which the quality of recommendations is assessed across multiple groups of stakeholders." In this article, we provide (i) an overview of the types of recommendation stakeholders that can be considered in conducting such evaluations, (ii) a discussion of the considerations and values that enter into developing measures that capture outcomes of interest for a diversity of stakeholders, (iii) an outline of a methodology for developing and applying multistakeholder evaluation, and (iv) three examples of different multistakeholder scenarios including derivations of evaluation metrics for different stakeholder groups in these different scenarios. The variety of possible stakeholders we identified that are part of the general recommendation ecosystem is suggested in Figure 1 and defined here, using the terminology from [1, 2]: Recommendation consumers are the traditional recommender system users to whom recommendations are delivered and to which typical forms of recommender system evaluation are oriented. Item providers form the general class of individuals or entities who create or otherwise stand behind the items being recommended.