A film released by The New Yorker was among the winners at Sunday's Academy Awards. "I'm Not a Robot," a darkly comic portrayal of a woman trying to convince her computer that she is human, claimed the prize for Best Live Action Short. It is the second film released by the magazine to be honored with an Oscar. The film, written and directed by Victoria Warmerdam, opens with a seemingly typical office scene that quickly unravels. When the protagonist, a music producer, fails a series of CAPTCHA tests, she begins to question her own grip on reality.

Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems - A n Integrative Approach David Rozado Political biases in Large Language Model (LLM) - based artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as OpenAI ' s ChatGPT or Google ' s Gemini, have been previously reported . While several prior studies have attempted to quantify these biases using political orientation tests, such approaches are limited by potential tests ' calibration biases and constrained response formats that do not reflect real - world human - AI interaction s. This study employs a multi - method approach to assess political bias in leading AI systems, integrating four complementary methodologies: (1) linguistic comparison of AI - generated text with the language used by Republican and Democratic U.S. Congress mem bers, (2) analysis of political viewpoints embedded in AI - generated policy recommendations, (3) sentiment analysis of AI - generated text toward politically affiliated public figures, and (4) standardized political orientation testing. Results indicate a con sistent left - leaning bias across most contemporary AI systems, with arguably varying degrees of intensity. However, this bias is not an inherent feature of LLMs; prior research demonstrates that fine - tuning with politically skewed data can realign these mo dels across the ideological spectrum. The presence of systematic political bias in AI systems poses risks, including reduced viewpoint diversity, increased societal polarization, and the potential for public mistrust in AI technologies. To mitigate these r isks, AI systems should be designed to prioritize factual accuracy while maintaining neutrality on most lawful normative issues. Furthermore, independent monitoring platforms are necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and responsible AI developm ent. Introduction Recent advancements in AI technology, exemplified by Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, represent one of the most significant technological breakthroughs in recent decades. The ability of AI systems to understand and generate human - like natural language has unlocked new possibilities for automation, human - computer interaction, content generation, and information retrieval. However, th ese impressive capabilities ha ve also raised concerns abo ut the potential biases that such systems might harbor [1], [2], [3], [4] . Preliminary evidence has suggested that AI systems exhibit political biases in the textual content they generate [2], [5], [6] .

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to the development of intelligent LLM-based agents capable of interacting with graphical user interfaces (GUIs). These agents demonstrate strong reasoning and adaptability, enabling them to perform complex tasks that traditionally required predefined rules. However, the reliance on step-by-step reasoning in LLM-based agents often results in inefficiencies, particularly for routine tasks. In contrast, traditional rule-based systems excel in efficiency but lack the intelligence and flexibility to adapt to novel scenarios. To address this challenge, we propose a novel evolutionary framework for GUI agents that enhances operational efficiency while retaining intelligence and flexibility. Our approach incorporates a memory mechanism that records the agent's task execution history. By analyzing this history, the agent identifies repetitive action sequences and evolves high-level actions that act as shortcuts, replacing these low-level operations and improving efficiency. This allows the agent to focus on tasks requiring more complex reasoning, while simplifying routine actions. Experimental results on multiple benchmark tasks demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms existing methods in both efficiency and accuracy. The code will be open-sourced to support further research.

Domain shift remains a persistent challenge in deep-learning-based computer vision, often requiring extensive model modifications or large labeled datasets to address. Inspired by human visual perception, which adjusts input quality through corrective lenses rather than over-training the brain, we propose Lens, a novel camera sensor control method that enhances model performance by capturing high-quality images from the model's perspective rather than relying on traditional human-centric sensor control. Lens is lightweight and adapts sensor parameters to specific models and scenes in real-time. At its core, Lens utilizes VisiT, a training-free, model-specific quality indicator that evaluates individual unlabeled samples at test time using confidence scores without additional adaptation costs. To validate Lens, we introduce ImageNet-ES Diverse, a new benchmark dataset capturing natural perturbations from varying sensor and lighting conditions. Extensive experiments on both ImageNet-ES and our new ImageNet-ES Diverse show that Lens significantly improves model accuracy across various baseline schemes for sensor control and model modification while maintaining low latency in image captures. Lens effectively compensates for large model size differences and integrates synergistically with model improvement techniques. Our code and dataset are available at github.com/Edw2n/Lens.git.

We formulate the problem of fake news detection using distributed fact-checkers (agents) with unknown reliability. The stream of news/statements is modeled as an independent and identically distributed binary source (to represent true and false statements). Upon observing a news, agent $i$ labels the news as true or false which reflects the true validity of the statement with some probability $1-\pi_i$. In other words, agent $i$ misclassified each statement with error probability $\pi_i\in (0,1)$, where the parameter $\pi_i$ models the (un)trustworthiness of agent $i$. We present an algorithm to learn the unreliability parameters, resulting in a distributed fact-checking algorithm. Furthermore, we extensively analyze the discrete-time limit of our algorithm.

Personality Computing is a field at the intersection of Personality Psychology and Computer Science. Started in 2005, research in the field utilizes computational methods to understand and predict human personality traits. The expansion of the field has been very rapid and, by analyzing digital footprints (text, images, social media, etc.), it helped to develop systems that recognize and even replicate human personality. While offering promising applications in talent recruiting, marketing and healthcare, the ethical implications of Personality Computing are significant. Concerns include data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential for manipulation by personality-aware Artificial Intelligence. This paper provides an overview of the field, explores key methodologies, discusses the challenges and threats, and outlines potential future directions for responsible development and deployment of Personality Computing technologies.

Existing challenges in misinformation exposure and susceptibility vary across demographic groups, as some populations are more vulnerable to misinformation than others. Large language models (LLMs) introduce new dimensions to these challenges through their ability to generate persuasive content at scale and reinforcing existing biases. This study investigates the bidirectional persuasion dynamics between LLMs and humans when exposed to misinformative content. We analyze human-to-LLM influence using human-stance datasets and assess LLM-to-human influence by generating LLM-based persuasive arguments. Additionally, we use a multi-agent LLM framework to analyze the spread of misinformation under persuasion among demographic-oriented LLM agents. Our findings show that demographic factors influence susceptibility to misinformation in LLMs, closely reflecting the demographic-based patterns seen in human susceptibility. We also find that, similar to human demographic groups, multi-agent LLMs exhibit echo chamber behavior. This research explores the interplay between humans and LLMs, highlighting demographic differences in the context of misinformation and offering insights for future interventions.

Social biases and belief-driven behaviors can significantly impact Large Language Models (LLMs) decisions on several tasks. As LLMs are increasingly used in multi-agent systems for societal simulations, their ability to model fundamental group psychological characteristics remains critical yet under-explored. In this study, we present a multi-agent framework that simulates belief congruence, a classical group psychology theory that plays a crucial role in shaping societal interactions and preferences. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit amplified belief congruence compared to humans, across diverse contexts. We further investigate the implications of this behavior on two downstream tasks: (1) misinformation dissemination and (2) LLM learning, finding that belief congruence in LLMs increases misinformation dissemination and impedes learning. To mitigate these negative impacts, we propose strategies inspired by: (1) contact hypothesis, (2) accuracy nudges, and (3) global citizenship framework. Our results show that the best strategies reduce misinformation dissemination by up to 37% and enhance learning by 11%. Bridging social psychology and AI, our work provides insights to navigate real-world interactions using LLMs while addressing belief-driven biases.

Commercial content moderation APIs are marketed as scalable solutions to combat online hate speech. However, the reliance on these APIs risks both silencing legitimate speech, called over-moderation, and failing to protect online platforms from harmful speech, known as under-moderation. To assess such risks, this paper introduces a framework for auditing black-box NLP systems. Using the framework, we systematically evaluate five widely used commercial content moderation APIs. Analyzing five million queries based on four datasets, we find that APIs frequently rely on group identity terms, such as ``black'', to predict hate speech. While OpenAI's and Amazon's services perform slightly better, all providers under-moderate implicit hate speech, which uses codified messages, especially against LGBTQIA+ individuals. Simultaneously, they over-moderate counter-speech, reclaimed slurs and content related to Black, LGBTQIA+, Jewish, and Muslim people. We recommend that API providers offer better guidance on API implementation and threshold setting and more transparency on their APIs' limitations. Warning: This paper contains offensive and hateful terms and concepts. We have chosen to reproduce these terms for reasons of transparency.

We present a survey of methods for assessing and enhancing the quality of online discussions, focusing on the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs). While online discourses aim, at least in theory, to foster mutual understanding, they often devolve into harmful exchanges, such as hate speech, threatening social cohesion and democratic values. Recent advancements in LLMs enable facilitation agents that not only moderate content, but also actively improve the quality of interactions. Our survey synthesizes ideas from Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Social Sciences to provide (a) a new taxonomy on discussion quality evaluation, (b) an overview of intervention and facilitation strategies, along with a new taxonomy on conversation facilitation datasets, (c) an LLM-oriented roadmap of good practices and future research directions, from technological and societal perspectives.