This review introduces the transformative potential of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and foundation models, including large language models (LLMs), for health technology assessment (HTA). We explore their applications in four critical areas, evidence synthesis, evidence generation, clinical trials and economic modeling: (1) Evidence synthesis: Generative AI has the potential to assist in automating literature reviews and meta-analyses by proposing search terms, screening abstracts, and extracting data with notable accuracy; (2) Evidence generation: These models can potentially facilitate automating the process and analyze the increasingly available large collections of real-world data (RWD), including unstructured clinical notes and imaging, enhancing the speed and quality of real-world evidence (RWE) generation; (3) Clinical trials: Generative AI can be used to optimize trial design, improve patient matching, and manage trial data more efficiently; and (4) Economic modeling: Generative AI can also aid in the development of health economic models, from conceptualization to validation, thus streamlining the overall HTA process. Despite their promise, these technologies, while rapidly improving, are still nascent and continued careful evaluation in their applications to HTA is required. To ensure their responsible use and implementation, both developers and users of research incorporating these tools, should familiarize themselves with their current limitations, including the issues related to scientific validity, risk of bias, and consider equity and ethical implications. We also surveyed the current policy landscape and provide suggestions for HTA agencies on responsibly integrating generative AI into their workflows, emphasizing the importance of human oversight and the fast-evolving nature of these tools.

With the ongoing rapid adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based systems in high-stakes domains, ensuring the trustworthiness, safety, and observability of these systems has become crucial. It is essential to evaluate and monitor AI systems not only for accuracy and quality-related metrics but also for robustness, bias, security, interpretability, and other responsible AI dimensions. We focus on large language models (LLMs) and other generative AI models, which present additional challenges such as hallucinations, harmful and manipulative content, and copyright infringement. In this survey article accompanying our KDD 2024 tutorial, we highlight a wide range of harms associated with generative AI systems, and survey state of the art approaches (along with open challenges) to address these harms.

Are large language models (LLMs) biased towards text generated by LLMs over text authored by humans, leading to possible anti-human bias? Utilizing a classical experimental design inspired by employment discrimination studies, we tested widely-used LLMs, including GPT-3.5 and GPT4, in binary-choice scenarios. These involved LLM-based agents selecting between products and academic papers described either by humans or LLMs under identical conditions. Our results show a consistent tendency for LLM-based AIs to prefer LLM-generated content. This suggests the possibility of AI systems implicitly discriminating against humans, giving AI agents an unfair advantage.

We introduce WildGuard -- an open, light-weight moderation tool for LLM safety that achieves three goals: (1) identifying malicious intent in user prompts, (2) detecting safety risks of model responses, and (3) determining model refusal rate. Together, WildGuard serves the increasing needs for automatic safety moderation and evaluation of LLM interactions, providing a one-stop tool with enhanced accuracy and broad coverage across 13 risk categories. While existing open moderation tools such as Llama-Guard2 score reasonably well in classifying straightforward model interactions, they lag far behind a prompted GPT-4, especially in identifying adversarial jailbreaks and in evaluating models' refusals, a key measure for evaluating safety behaviors in model responses. To address these challenges, we construct WildGuardMix, a large-scale and carefully balanced multi-task safety moderation dataset with 92K labeled examples that cover vanilla (direct) prompts and adversarial jailbreaks, paired with various refusal and compliance responses. WildGuardMix is a combination of WildGuardTrain, the training data of WildGuard, and WildGuardTest, a high-quality human-annotated moderation test set with 5K labeled items covering broad risk scenarios. Through extensive evaluations on WildGuardTest and ten existing public benchmarks, we show that WildGuard establishes state-of-the-art performance in open-source safety moderation across all the three tasks compared to ten strong existing open-source moderation models (e.g., up to 26.4% improvement on refusal detection). Importantly, WildGuard matches and sometimes exceeds GPT-4 performance (e.g., up to 3.9% improvement on prompt harmfulness identification). WildGuard serves as a highly effective safety moderator in an LLM interface, reducing the success rate of jailbreak attacks from 79.8% to 2.4%.

As Large language models have shown a remarkable a significant milestone in this area, Elhage et al. ability to learn and perform complex tasks through (2021) demonstrated the existence of induction in-context learning (ICL) (Brown et al., 2020; Touvron heads in Transformer LMs. These heads scan the et al., 2023b). In ICL, the model receives context for previous instances of the current token a demonstration context and a query question as using a prefix matching mechanism, which identifies a prompt for prediction. Unlike supervised learning, if and where a token has appeared before. ICL utilises the pretrained model's capabilities If a matching token is found, the head employs to recognise and replicate patterns within the a copying mechanism to increase the probability demonstration context, thereby enabling accurate of the subsequent token, facilitating exact or approximate predictions for the query without the use of gradient repetition of sequences and embodying updates.

Since its implementation in May 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has prompted businesses to revisit and revise their data handling practices to ensure compliance. The privacy policy, which serves as the primary means of informing users about their privacy rights and the data practices of companies, has been significantly updated by numerous businesses post-GDPR implementation. However, many privacy policies remain packed with technical jargon, lengthy explanations, and vague descriptions of data practices and user rights. This makes it a challenging task for users and regulatory authorities to manually verify the GDPR compliance of these privacy policies. In this study, we aim to address the challenge of compliance analysis between GDPR (Article 13) and privacy policies for 5G networks. We manually collected privacy policies from almost 70 different 5G MNOs, and we utilized an automated BERT-based model for classification. We show that an encouraging 51$\%$ of companies demonstrate a strong adherence to GDPR. In addition, we present the first study that provides current empirical evidence on the readability of privacy policies for 5G network. we adopted readability analysis toolset that incorporates various established readability metrics. The findings empirically show that the readability of the majority of current privacy policies remains a significant challenge. Hence, 5G providers need to invest considerable effort into revising these documents to enhance both their utility and the overall user experience.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to many research problems across various domains. One of the applications of LLMs is providing question-answering systems that cater to users from different fields. The effectiveness of LLM-based question-answering systems has already been established at an acceptable level for users posing questions in popular and public domains such as trivia and literature. However, it has not often been established in niche domains that traditionally require specialized expertise. To this end, we construct the NEPAQuAD1.0 benchmark to evaluate the performance of three frontier LLMs -- Claude Sonnet, Gemini, and GPT-4 -- when answering questions originating from Environmental Impact Statements prepared by U.S. federal government agencies in accordance with the National Environmental Environmental Act (NEPA). We specifically measure the ability of LLMs to understand the nuances of legal, technical, and compliance-related information present in NEPA documents in different contextual scenarios. For example, we test the LLMs' internal prior NEPA knowledge by providing questions without any context, as well as assess how LLMs synthesize the contextual information present in long NEPA documents to facilitate the question/answering task. We compare the performance of the long context LLMs and RAG powered models in handling different types of questions (e.g., problem-solving, divergent). Our results suggest that RAG powered models significantly outperform the long context models in the answer accuracy regardless of the choice of the frontier LLM. Our further analysis reveals that many models perform better answering closed questions than divergent and problem-solving questions.

The pervasive deployment of Large Language Models-LLMs in various sectors often neglects the nuanced requirements of individuals and small organizations, who benefit more from models precisely tailored to their specific business contexts rather than those with broadly superior general capabilities. This work introduces \textbf{AnyTaskTune}, a novel fine-tuning methodology coined as \textbf{Task-Fine-Tune}, specifically developed to elevate model performance on a diverse array of domain-specific tasks. This method involves a meticulous process to identify and define targeted sub-tasks within a domain, followed by the creation of specialized enhancement datasets for fine-tuning, thereby optimizing task-specific model performance. We conducted comprehensive fine-tuning experiments not only in the legal domain for tasks such as keyword extraction and sentence prediction but across over twenty different sub-tasks derived from the domains of finance, healthcare, law, psychology, consumer services, and human resources. To substantiate our approach and facilitate community engagement, we will open-source these bilingual task datasets. Our findings demonstrate that models fine-tuned using the \textbf{Task-Fine-Tune} methodology not only achieve superior performance on these specific tasks but also significantly outperform models with higher general capabilities in their respective domains. Our work is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/PandaVT/DataTager}.

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and amplify harmful stereotypes, particularly those that disproportionately affect marginalised communities. To understand the effect of these stereotypes more comprehensively, we introduce GlobalBias, a dataset of 876k sentences incorporating 40 distinct gender-by-ethnicity groups alongside descriptors typically used in bias literature, which enables us to study a broad set of stereotypes from around the world. We use GlobalBias to directly probe a suite of LMs via perplexity, which we use as a proxy to determine how certain stereotypes are represented in the model's internal representations. Following this, we generate character profiles based on given names and evaluate the prevalence of stereotypes in model outputs. We find that the demographic groups associated with various stereotypes remain consistent across model likelihoods and model outputs. Furthermore, larger models consistently display higher levels of stereotypical outputs, even when explicitly instructed not to.

Large Language Models (LLMs) enable a future in which certain types of legal documents may be generated automatically. This has a great potential to streamline legal processes, lower the cost of legal services, and dramatically increase access to justice. While many researchers focus their efforts on proposing and evaluating LLM-based applications supporting tasks in the legal domain, there is a notable lack of investigations into how legal professionals perceive content if they believe it has been generated by an LLM. Yet, this is a critical point as over-reliance or unfounded skepticism may influence whether such documents bring about appropriate legal consequences. This study is the necessary analysis in the context of the ongoing transition towards mature generative AI systems. Specifically, we examined whether the perception of legal documents' by lawyers (n=75) varies based on their assumed origin (human-crafted vs AI-generated). The participants evaluated the documents focusing on their correctness and language quality. Our analysis revealed a clear preference for documents perceived as crafted by a human over those believed to be generated by AI. At the same time, most of the participants are expecting the future in which documents will be generated automatically. These findings could be leveraged by legal practitioners, policy makers and legislators to implement and adopt legal document generation technology responsibly, and to fuel the necessary discussions into how legal processes should be updated to reflect the recent technological developments.