Statistical parity metrics have been widely studied and endorsed in the AI community as a means of achieving fairness, but they suffer from at least two weaknesses. They disregard the actual welfare consequences of decisions and may therefore fail to achieve the kind of fairness that is desired for disadvantaged groups. In addition, they are often incompatible with each other, and there is no convincing justification for selecting one rather than another. This paper explores whether a broader conception of social justice, based on optimizing a social welfare function (SWF), can be useful for assessing various definitions of parity. We focus on the well-known alpha fairness SWF, which has been defended by axiomatic and bargaining arguments over a period of 70 years. We analyze the optimal solution and show that it can justify demographic parity or equalized odds under certain conditions, but frequently requires a departure from these types of parity. In addition, we find that predictive rate parity is of limited usefulness. These results suggest that optimization theory can shed light on the intensely discussed question of how to achieve group fairness in AI.

Memes have evolved as a prevalent medium for diverse communication, ranging from humour to propaganda. With the rising popularity of image-focused content, there is a growing need to explore its potential harm from different aspects. Previous studies have analyzed memes in closed settings - detecting harm, applying semantic labels, and offering natural language explanations. To extend this research, we introduce MemeMQA, a multimodal question-answering framework aiming to solicit accurate responses to structured questions while providing coherent explanations. We curate MemeMQACorpus, a new dataset featuring 1,880 questions related to 1,122 memes with corresponding answer-explanation pairs. We further propose ARSENAL, a novel two-stage multimodal framework that leverages the reasoning capabilities of LLMs to address MemeMQA. We benchmark MemeMQA using competitive baselines and demonstrate its superiority - ~18% enhanced answer prediction accuracy and distinct text generation lead across various metrics measuring lexical and semantic alignment over the best baseline. We analyze ARSENAL's robustness through diversification of question-set, confounder-based evaluation regarding MemeMQA's generalizability, and modality-specific assessment, enhancing our understanding of meme interpretation in the multimodal communication landscape.

Counterfactuals, or modified inputs that lead to a different outcome, are an important tool for understanding the logic used by machine learning classifiers and how to change an undesirable classification. Even if a counterfactual changes a classifier's decision, however, it may not affect the true underlying class probabilities, i.e. the counterfactual may act like an adversarial attack and ``fool'' the classifier. We propose a new framework for creating modified inputs that change the true underlying probabilities in a beneficial way which we call Trustworthy Actionable Perturbations (TAP). This includes a novel verification procedure to ensure that TAP change the true class probabilities instead of acting adversarially. Our framework also includes new cost, reward, and goal definitions that are better suited to effectuating change in the real world. We present PAC-learnability results for our verification procedure and theoretically analyze our new method for measuring reward. We also develop a methodology for creating TAP and compare our results to those achieved by previous counterfactual methods.

A Tokyo court on Thursday ruled against granting patents to inventions generated by artificial intelligence in a dispute over whether AI -- not human beings -- can be recognized as an inventor. The ruling comes amid ongoing debates on how to regulate generative AI and is part of a transnational class action lawsuit launched by Ryan Abbott, a law and health science professor at the University of Surrey in England. The plaintiff filed for a patent in 2021 for a device generated by AI, listing the inventor's name as "DABUS, an artificial intelligence that autonomously invented this invention." Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience (DABUS) is an AI system developed by Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist and president of Imagination Engines, an AI technology company.

Over the past year, there has been a robust debate about the benefits and risks of open sourcing foundation models. However, this discussion has often taken place at a high level of generality or with a narrow focus on specific technical attributes. In part, this is because defining open source for foundation models has proven tricky, given its significant differences from traditional software development. In order to inform more practical and nuanced decisions about opening AI systems, including foundation models, this paper presents a framework for grappling with openness across the AI stack. It summarizes previous work on this topic, analyzes the various potential reasons to pursue openness, and outlines how openness varies in different parts of the AI stack, both at the model and at the system level. In doing so, its authors hope to provide a common descriptive framework to deepen a nuanced and rigorous understanding of openness in AI and enable further work around definitions of openness and safety in AI.

The high volume and rapid evolution of content on social media present major challenges for studying the stance of social media users. In this work, we develop a two stage stance labeling method that utilizes the user-hashtag bipartite graph and the user-user interaction graph. In the first stage, a simple and efficient heuristic for stance labeling uses the user-hashtag bipartite graph to iteratively update the stance association of user and hashtag nodes via a label propagation mechanism. This set of soft labels is then integrated with the user-user interaction graph to train a graph neural network (GNN) model using semi-supervised learning. We evaluate this method on two large-scale datasets containing tweets related to climate change from June 2021 to June 2022 and gun control from January 2022 to January 2023. Our experiments demonstrate that enriching text-based embeddings of users with network information from the user interaction graph using our semi-supervised GNN method outperforms both classifiers trained on user textual embeddings and zero-shot classification using LLMs such as GPT4. We discuss the need for integrating nuanced understanding from social science with the scalability of computational methods to better understand how polarization on social media occurs for divisive issues such as climate change and gun control.

In light of recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) that have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP), there is an urgent need for new benchmarks to keep pace with the fast development of LLMs. In this paper, we propose CFLUE, the Chinese Financial Language Understanding Evaluation benchmark, designed to assess the capability of LLMs across various dimensions. Specifically, CFLUE provides datasets tailored for both knowledge assessment and application assessment. In knowledge assessment, it consists of 38K+ multiple-choice questions with associated solution explanations. These questions serve dual purposes: answer prediction and question reasoning. In application assessment, CFLUE features 16K+ test instances across distinct groups of NLP tasks such as text classification, machine translation, relation extraction, reading comprehension, and text generation. Upon CFLUE, we conduct a thorough evaluation of representative LLMs. The results reveal that only GPT-4 and GPT-4-turbo achieve an accuracy exceeding 60\% in answer prediction for knowledge assessment, suggesting that there is still substantial room for improvement in current LLMs. In application assessment, although GPT-4 and GPT-4-turbo are the top two performers, their considerable advantage over lightweight LLMs is noticeably diminished. The datasets and scripts associated with CFLUE are openly accessible at https://github.com/aliyun/cflue.

Large language models (LLMs) have taken centre stage in debates on Artificial Intelligence. Yet there remains a gap in how to assess LLMs' conformity to important human values. In this paper, we investigate whether state-of-the-art LLMs, GPT-4 and Claude 2.1 (Gemini Pro and LLAMA 2 did not generate valid results) are moral hypocrites. We employ two research instruments based on the Moral Foundations Theory: (i) the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), which investigates which values are considered morally relevant in abstract moral judgements; and (ii) the Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs), which evaluate moral cognition in concrete scenarios related to each moral foundation. We characterise conflicts in values between these different abstractions of moral evaluation as hypocrisy. We found that both models displayed reasonable consistency within each instrument compared to humans, but they displayed contradictory and hypocritical behaviour when we compared the abstract values present in the MFQ to the evaluation of concrete moral violations of the MFV.

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrates remarkable multilingual capabilities in natural language processing, attracting global attention in both academia and industry. To mitigate potential discrimination and enhance the overall usability and accessibility for diverse language user groups, it is important for the development of language-fair technology. Despite the breakthroughs of LLMs, the investigation into the multilingual scenario remains insufficient, where a comprehensive survey to summarize recent approaches, developments, limitations, and potential solutions is desirable. To this end, we provide a survey with multiple perspectives on the utilization of LLMs in the multilingual scenario. We first rethink the transitions between previous and current research on pre-trained language models. Then we introduce several perspectives on the multilingualism of LLMs, including training and inference methods, model security, multi-domain with language culture, and usage of datasets. We also discuss the major challenges that arise in these aspects, along with possible solutions. Besides, we highlight future research directions that aim at further enhancing LLMs with multilingualism. The survey aims to help the research community address multilingual problems and provide a comprehensive understanding of the core concepts, key techniques, and latest developments in multilingual natural language processing based on LLMs.

The classification of statements provided by individuals during police interviews is a complex and significant task within the domain of natural language processing (NLP) and legal informatics. The lack of extensive domain-specific datasets raises challenges to the advancement of NLP methods in the field. This paper aims to address some of the present challenges by introducing a novel dataset tailored for classification of statements made during police interviews, prior to court proceedings. Utilising the curated dataset for training and evaluation, we introduce a fine-tuned DistilBERT model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in distinguishing truthful from deceptive statements. To enhance interpretability, we employ explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods to offer explainability through saliency maps, that interpret the model's decision-making process. Lastly, we present an XAI interface that empowers both legal professionals and non-specialists to interact with and benefit from our system. Our model achieves an accuracy of 86%, and is shown to outperform a custom transformer architecture in a comparative study. This holistic approach advances the accessibility, transparency, and effectiveness of statement analysis, with promising implications for both legal practice and research.