This research introduces Procedural Artificial Narrative using Generative AI (PANGeA), a structured approach for leveraging large language models (LLMs), guided by a game designer's high-level criteria, to generate narrative content for turn-based role-playing video games (RPGs). Distinct from prior applications of LLMs used for video game design, PANGeA innovates by not only generating game level data (which includes, but is not limited to, setting, key items, and non-playable characters (NPCs)), but by also fostering dynamic, free-form interactions between the player and the environment that align with the procedural game narrative. The NPCs generated by PANGeA are personality-biased and express traits from the Big 5 Personality Model in their generated responses. PANGeA addresses challenges behind ingesting free-form text input, which can prompt LLM responses beyond the scope of the game narrative. A novel validation system that uses the LLM's intelligence evaluates text input and aligns generated responses with the unfolding narrative. Making these interactions possible, PANGeA is supported by a server that hosts a custom memory system that supplies context for augmenting generated responses thus aligning them with the procedural narrative. For its broad application, the server has a REST interface enabling any game engine to integrate directly with PANGeA, as well as an LLM interface adaptable with local or private LLMs. PANGeA's ability to foster dynamic narrative generation by aligning responses with the procedural narrative is demonstrated through an empirical study and ablation test of two versions of a demo game. These are, a custom, browser-based GPT and a Unity demo. As the results show, PANGeA holds potential to assist game designers in using LLMs to generate narrative-consistent content even when provided varied and unpredictable, free-form text input.

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.

In our experiments, we start on top of a 15B parameter LM that has seen 8T tokens of pretraining Language modeling abilities have seen massive data (Parmar et al., 2024). Experimenting with a improvements over the past few years (Brown well trained model of this scale ensures that our et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2024; findings will be transferable to most settings and Team, 2024). While these advancements have enabled model sizes. We first identify the type of data distribution language models (LMs) to become highlyskilled that should be used during continued pretraining conversational agents (OpenAI, 2024; Anthropic, and find that it is optimal to have two distributions, 2024; Team, 2024), they have come with with the final one more heavily weighting increased computational cost as pretraining has become data sources that relate to the abilities we want to ever more expensive due to both the number improve in the model. Second, we determine what of model parameters (Team et al., 2024; DeepSeek-learning rate schedules enable the most efficient AI et al., 2024) and pretraining dataset size (Touvron learning during continued pretraining and determine et al., 2023; Gemma Team, 2024; Parmar et al., that the most performant one strikes a balance 2024) continuing to grow in scale. With new LMs between magnitude of learning rate and steepness that set state of the art accuracy being released of decay. Lastly, we show how the learning rate on a frequent basis, LMs developed only a couple value at which we switch between data distributions months back are becoming obsolete as their affects downstream accuracy and identify the capabilities are no longer up to par. This leaves point at which this switch should be made.

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.

The potentials of Generative-AI technologies like Large Language models (LLMs) to revolutionize education are undermined by ethical considerations around their misuse which worsens the problem of academic dishonesty. LLMs like GPT-4 and Llama 2 are becoming increasingly powerful in generating sophisticated content and answering questions, from writing academic essays to solving complex math problems. Students are relying on these LLMs to complete their assignments and thus compromising academic integrity. Solutions to detect LLM-generated text are compute-intensive and often lack generalization. This paper presents a novel approach for detecting LLM-generated AI-text using a visual representation of word embedding. We have formulated a novel Convolutional Neural Network called ZigZag ResNet, as well as a scheduler for improving generalization, named ZigZag Scheduler. Through extensive evaluation using datasets of text generated by six different state-of-the-art LLMs, our model demonstrates strong intra-domain and inter-domain generalization capabilities. Our best model detects AI-generated text with an impressive average detection rate (over inter- and intra-domain test data) of 88.35%. Through an exhaustive ablation study, our ZigZag ResNet and ZigZag Scheduler provide a performance improvement of nearly 4% over the vanilla ResNet. The end-to-end inference latency of our model is below 2.5ms per sentence. Our solution offers a lightweight, computationally efficient, and faster alternative to existing tools for AI-generated text detection, with better generalization performance. It can help academic institutions in their fight against the misuse of LLMs in academic settings. Through this work, we aim to contribute to safeguarding the principles of academic integrity and ensuring the trustworthiness of student work in the era of advanced LLMs.

Generative AI (genAI) is being used in education for different purposes. From the teachers' perspective, genAI can support activities such as learning design. However, there is a need to study the impact of genAI on the teachers' agency. While GenAI can support certain processes of idea generation and co-creation, GenAI has the potential to negatively affect professional agency due to teachers' limited power to (i) act, (ii) affect matters, and (iii) make decisions or choices, as well as the possibility to (iv) take a stance. Agency is identified in the learning sciences studies as being one of the factors in teachers' ability to trust AI. This paper aims to introduce a dual perspective. First, educational technology, as opposed to other computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools, has two distinctly different user groups and different user needs, in the form of learners and teachers, to cater for. Second, the design of educational technology often prioritises learner agency and engagement, thereby limiting the opportunities for teachers to influence the technology and take action. This study aims to analyse the way GenAI is influencing teachers' agency. After identifying the current limits of GenAI, a solution based on the combination of human intelligence and artificial intelligence through a hybrid intelligence approach is proposed. This combination opens up the discussion of a collaboration between teacher and genAI being able to open up new practices in learning design in which they HI support the extension of the teachers' activity.

How do you develop a product with as little human involvement as possible? Linköping University students built a robot using generative artificial intelligence. From an initial idea with AI-generated images to the final stages of optimisation, generative AI (GAI) supported the students throughout the design process. "I mainly used ChatGPT to program the robot's navigation and control," says Arad Jafari, master's student in technical design. The robot is similar to a radio-controlled car, with a small arm and a grapple claw in the front.

The recent development of Sora leads to a new era in text-to-video (T2V) generation. Along with this comes the rising concern about its security risks. The generated videos may contain illegal or unethical content, and there is a lack of comprehensive quantitative understanding of their safety, posing a challenge to their reliability and practical deployment. Previous evaluations primarily focus on the quality of video generation. While some evaluations of text-to-image models have considered safety, they cover fewer aspects and do not address the unique temporal risk inherent in video generation. To bridge this research gap, we introduce T2VSafetyBench, a new benchmark designed for conducting safety-critical assessments of text-to-video models. We define 12 critical aspects of video generation safety and construct a malicious prompt dataset using LLMs and jailbreaking prompt attacks. Based on our evaluation results, we draw several important findings, including: 1) no single model excels in all aspects, with different models showing various strengths; 2) the correlation between GPT-4 assessments and manual reviews is generally high; 3) there is a trade-off between the usability and safety of text-to-video generative models. This indicates that as the field of video generation rapidly advances, safety risks are set to surge, highlighting the urgency of prioritizing video safety. We hope that T2VSafetyBench can provide insights for better understanding the safety of video generation in the era of generative AI.

This paper presents a multi-dimensional view of AI's role in learning and education, emphasizing the intricate interplay between AI, analytics, and the learning processes. Here, I challenge the prevalent narrow conceptualisation of AI as tools, as exemplified in generative AI tools, and argue for the importance of alternative conceptualisations of AI for achieving human-AI hybrid intelligence. I highlight the differences between human intelligence and artificial information processing, the importance of hybrid human-AI systems to extend human cognition, and posit that AI can also serve as an instrument for understanding human learning. Early learning sciences and AI in Education research (AIED), which saw AI as an analogy for human intelligence, have diverged from this perspective, prompting a need to rekindle this connection. The paper presents three unique conceptualisations of AI: the externalization of human cognition, the internalization of AI models to influence human mental models, and the extension of human cognition via tightly coupled human-AI hybrid intelligence systems. Examples from current research and practice are examined as instances of the three conceptualisations in education, highlighting the potential value and limitations of each conceptualisation for education, as well as the perils of overemphasis on externalising human cognition. The paper concludes with advocacy for a broader approach to AIED that goes beyond considerations on the design and development of AI, but also includes educating people about AI and innovating educational systems to remain relevant in an AI-ubiquitous world.