In this paper, we conduct an empirical analysis of how large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, interpret constitutional principles in complex decision-making scenarios. We examine rulings from the Italian Constitutional Court on bioethics issues that involve trade-offs between competing values and compare model-generated legal arguments on these issues to those presented by the State, the Court, and the applicants. Our results indicate that GPT-4 consistently aligns more closely with progressive interpretations of the Constitution, often overlooking competing values and mirroring the applicants' views rather than the more conservative perspectives of the State or the Court's moderate positions. Our experiments reveal a distinct tendency of GPT-4 to favor progressive legal interpretations, underscoring the influence of underlying data biases. We thus underscore the importance of testing alignment in real-world scenarios and considering the implications of deploying LLMs in decision-making processes.

"Even if the AI boom turns out to be an AI bubble, the LLMs aren't going anywhere," the Guardian's UK technology editor, Alex Hern, tells Michael Safi. "Whether or not OpenAI goes bust, whether or not Google and Microsoft's valuations plummet back to the ground, there is this technology that was created. They may go bust, but that doesn't mean we're back to the world we were in in 2020, for good and for ill." Alex explains the numerous hurdles AI companies have faced in recent months, from the financial concerns to hardware shortages, from software limits to legal challenges. What do these issues mean for the potential of AI?

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into robotics significantly enhances the capabilities of embodied agents in understanding and executing complex natural language instructions. However, the unmitigated deployment of LLM-based embodied systems in real-world environments may pose potential physical risks, such as property damage and personal injury. Existing security benchmarks for LLMs overlook risk awareness for LLM-based embodied agents. To address this gap, we propose RiskAwareBench, an automated framework designed to assess physical risks awareness in LLM-based embodied agents. RiskAwareBench consists of four modules: safety tips generation, risky scene generation, plan generation, and evaluation, enabling comprehensive risk assessment with minimal manual intervention. Utilizing this framework, we compile the PhysicalRisk dataset, encompassing diverse scenarios with associated safety tips, observations, and instructions. Extensive experiments reveal that most LLMs exhibit insufficient physical risk awareness, and baseline risk mitigation strategies yield limited enhancement, which emphasizes the urgency and cruciality of improving risk awareness in LLM-based embodied agents in the future.

Technology does not exist in a vacuum; technological development, media representation, public perception, and governmental regulation cyclically influence each other to produce the collective understanding of a technology's capabilities, utilities, and risks. When these capabilities are overestimated, there is an enhanced risk of subjecting the public to dangerous or harmful technology, artificially restricting research and development directions, and enabling misguided or detrimental policy. The dangers of technological hype are particularly relevant in the rapidly evolving space of AI. Centering the research community as a key player in the development and proliferation of hype, we examine the origins and risks of AI hype to the research community and society more broadly and propose a set of measures that researchers, regulators, and the public can take to mitigate these risks and reduce the prevalence of unfounded claims about the technology.

The Artificial Intelligence Act of the European Union mandates that providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems establish a quality management system (QMS). Among other criteria, a QMS shall help to i) identify, analyze, evaluate, and mitigate risks, ii) ensure evidence of compliance with training, validation, and testing data, and iii) verify and document the AI system design and quality. Current research mainly addresses conceptual considerations and framework designs for AI risk assessment and auditing processes. However, it often overlooks practical tools that actively involve and support humans in checking and documenting high-risk or general-purpose AI systems. This paper addresses this gap by proposing requirements derived from legal regulations and a generic design and architecture of a QMS for AI systems verification and documentation. A first version of a prototype QMS is implemented, integrating LLMs as examples of AI systems and focusing on an integrated risk management sub-service. The prototype is evaluated on i) a user story-based qualitative requirements assessment using potential stakeholder scenarios and ii) a technical assessment of the required GPU storage and performance.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

In court practice, legal professionals rely on their training to provide opinions that resolve cases, one of the most crucial aspects being the ability to identify similar judgments from previous courts efficiently. However, finding a similar case is challenging and often depends on experience, legal domain knowledge, and extensive labor hours, making veteran lawyers or judges indispensable. This research aims to automate the analysis of judgment text similarity. We utilized a judgment dataset labeled as the "golden standard" by experts, which includes human-verified features that can be converted into an "expert similarity score." We then constructed a knowledge graph based on "case-article" relationships, ranking each case using natural language processing to derive a "Node2vec similarity score." By evaluating these two similarity scores, we identified their discrepancies and relationships. The results can significantly reduce the labor hours required for legal searches and recommendations, with potential applications extending to various fields of information retrieval.

The discourse on risks from advanced AI systems ("AIs") typically focuses on misuse, accidents and loss of control, but the question of AIs' moral status could have negative impacts which are of comparable significance and could be realised within similar timeframes. Our paper evaluates these impacts by investigating (1) the factual question of whether future advanced AI systems will be conscious, together with (2) the epistemic question of whether future human society will broadly believe advanced AI systems to be conscious. Assuming binary responses to (1) and (2) gives rise to four possibilities: in the true positive scenario, society predominantly correctly believes that AIs are conscious; in the false positive scenario, that belief is incorrect; in the true negative scenario, society correctly believes that AIs are not conscious; and lastly, in the false negative scenario, society incorrectly believes that AIs are not conscious. The paper offers vivid vignettes of the different futures to ground the two-dimensional framework. Critically, we identify four major risks: AI suffering, human disempowerment, geopolitical instability, and human depravity. We evaluate each risk across the different scenarios and provide an overall qualitative risk assessment for each scenario. Our analysis suggests that the worst possibility is the wrong belief that AI is non-conscious, followed by the wrong belief that AI is conscious. The paper concludes with the main recommendations to avoid research aimed at intentionally creating conscious AI and instead focus efforts on reducing our current uncertainties on both the factual and epistemic questions on AI consciousness.

On August 7, a group of renowned professors co-authored a letter urging key lawmakers to support a California AI bill as it enters the final stages of the state's legislative process. In a letter shared exclusively with TIME, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Lawrence Lessig, and Stuart Russell argue that the next generation of AI systems pose "severe risks" if "developed without sufficient care and oversight," and describe the bill as the "bare minimum for effective regulation of this technology." The bill, titled the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, was introduced by Senator Scott Wiener in February of this year. It requires AI companies training large-scale models to conduct rigorous safety testing for potentially dangerous capabilities and implement comprehensive safety measures to mitigate risks. "There are fewer regulations on AI systems that could pose catastrophic risks than on sandwich shops or hairdressers," the four experts write.

Can artificial intelligence be made to tell the truth? Probably not, but the developers of large language model (LLM) chatbots should be legally required to reduce the risk of errors, says a team of ethicists. "What we're just trying to do is create an incentive structure to get the companies to put a greater emphasis on truth or accuracy when they are creating the systems," says Brent Mittelstadt at the University of Oxford. How does ChatGPT work and do AI-powered chatbots "think" like us? LLM chatbots, such as ChatGPT, generate human-like responses to users' questions, based on statistical analysis of vast amounts of text. But although their answers usually appear convincing, they are also prone to errors – a flaw referred to as "hallucination".