In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) rapidly gained popularity across all parts of society, including education. After initial skepticism and bans, many schools have chosen to embrace this new technology by integrating it into their curricula in the form of virtual tutors and teaching assistants. However, neither the companies developing this technology nor the public institutions involved in its implementation have set up a formal system to collect feedback from the stakeholders impacted by them. In this paper, we argue that understanding the perceptions of those directly affected by LLMS in the classroom, such as students and teachers, as well as those indirectly impacted, like parents and school staff, is essential for ensuring responsible use of AI in this critical domain. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we present results of a literature review focusing on the perceptions of LLM-based chatbots in education. We highlight important gaps in the literature, such as the exclusion of key educational agents (e.g., parents or school administrators) when analyzing the role of stakeholders, and the frequent omission of the learning contexts in which the AI systems are implemented. Thus, we present a taxonomy that organizes existing literature on stakeholder perceptions. Second, we propose the Contextualized Perceptions for the Adoption of Chatbots in Education (Co-PACE) framework, which can be used to systematically elicit perceptions and inform whether and how LLM-based chatbots should be designed, developed, and deployed in the classroom.

At 2.16pm California time last Sunday, the US billionaire tech investor Marc Andreessen called it. "DeepSeek R1 is AI's Sputnik moment," he posted on X. A Chinese startup, operating since 2023 and helmed by a millennial mathematician, had unveiled a new chatbot that seemed to equal the performance of America's leading models at a fraction of the cost. Never mind that its answers on everything from the status of Taiwan to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were curbed by Chinese Communist party (CCP) censors. To Andreessen, a veteran of decades of technology booms and busts, it was like the Soviet Union getting the first satellite into orbit in 1957 and shocking America. The next day, shares in several of the world's biggest companies plunged – including the biggest fall in US market history for microchip maker Nvidia, which lost nearly 600bn.

Nothing cheers up a tech columnist more than the sight of 600bn being wiped off the market cap of an overvalued tech giant in a single day. And yet last Monday that's what happened to Nvidia, the leading maker of electronic picks and shovels for the AI gold rush. It was the biggest one-day slump for any company in history, and it was not alone – shares of companies in semiconductor, power and infrastructure industries exposed to AI collectively shed more than 1tn in value on the same day. The proximate cause of this chaos was the news that a Chinese tech startup of whom few had hitherto heard had released DeepSeek R1, a powerful AI assistant that was much cheaper to train and operate than the dominant models of the US tech giants – and yet was comparable in competence to OpenAI's o1 "reasoning" model. Just to illustrate the difference: R1 was said to have cost only 5.58m to build, which is small change compared with the billions that OpenAI and co have spent on their models; and R1 is about 15 times more efficient (in terms of resource use) than anything comparable made by Meta. The DeepSeek app immediately zoomed to the top of the Apple app store, where it attracted huge numbers of users who were clearly unfazed by the fact that the terms and conditions and the privacy policy they needed to accept were in Chinese.

Specialized hardware accelerators aid the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), and their efficiency impacts AI's environmental sustainability. This study presents the first publication of a comprehensive AI accelerator life-cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions, including the first publication of manufacturing emissions of an AI accelerator. Our analysis of five Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) encompasses all stages of the hardware lifespan - from raw material extraction, manufacturing, and disposal, to energy consumption during development, deployment, and serving of AI models. Using first-party data, it offers the most comprehensive evaluation to date of AI hardware's environmental impact. We include detailed descriptions of our LCA to act as a tutorial, road map, and inspiration for other computer engineers to perform similar LCAs to help us all understand the environmental impacts of our chips and of AI. A byproduct of this study is the new metric compute carbon intensity (CCI) that is helpful in evaluating AI hardware sustainability and in estimating the carbon footprint of training and inference. This study shows that CCI improves 3x from TPU v4i to TPU v6e. Moreover, while this paper's focus is on hardware, software advancements leverage and amplify these gains.

Ensemble methods enhance Large Language Models (LLMs) by combining multiple models but suffer from high computational costs. In this paper, we introduce Speculative Ensemble, a novel framework that accelerates LLM ensembles without sacrificing performance, inspired by Speculative Decoding-where a small proposal model generates tokens sequentially, and a larger target model verifies them in parallel. Our approach builds on two key insights: (1) the verification distribution can be the ensemble distribution of both the proposal and target models, and (2) alternating each model as the proposer and verifier can further enhance efficiency. We generalize this method to ensembles with n models and theoretically prove that SE is never slower than a standard ensemble, typically achieving faster speed. Extensive experiments demonstrate speed improvements of 1.11x-2.23x over standard ensemble techniques without compromising generation quality. Our code is available at https://github.com/Kamichanw/Speculative-Ensemble/

Query-focused summarization (QFS) gives a summary of documents to answer a query. Past QFS work assumes queries have one answer, ignoring debatable ones (Is law school worth it?). We introduce Debatable QFS (DQFS), a task to create summaries that answer debatable queries via documents with opposing perspectives; summaries must comprehensively cover all sources and balance perspectives, favoring no side. These goals elude LLM QFS systems, which: 1) lack structured content plans, failing to guide LLMs to write balanced summaries, and 2) use the same query to retrieve contexts across documents, failing to cover all perspectives specific to each document's content. To overcome this, we design MODS, a multi-LLM framework mirroring human panel discussions. MODS treats documents as individual Speaker LLMs and has a Moderator LLM that picks speakers to respond to tailored queries for planned topics. Speakers use tailored queries to retrieve relevant contexts from their documents and supply perspectives, which are tracked in a rich outline, yielding a content plan to guide the final summary. Experiments on ConflictingQA with controversial web queries and DebateQFS, our new dataset of debate queries from Debatepedia, show MODS beats SOTA by 38-59% in topic paragraph coverage and balance, based on new citation metrics. Users also find MODS's summaries to be readable and more balanced.

With the vast and dynamic user-generated content on Roblox, creating effective game recommendations requires a deep understanding of game content. Traditional recommendation models struggle with the inconsistent and sparse nature of game text features such as titles and descriptions. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer opportunities to enhance recommendation systems by analyzing in-game text data. This paper addresses two challenges: generating high-quality, structured text features for games without extensive human annotation, and validating these features to ensure they improve recommendation relevance. We propose an approach that extracts in-game text and uses LLMs to infer attributes such as genre and gameplay objectives from raw player interactions. Additionally, we introduce an LLM-based re-ranking mechanism to assess the effectiveness of the generated text features, enhancing personalization and user satisfaction. Beyond recommendations, our approach supports applications such as user engagement-based integrity detection, already deployed in production. This scalable framework demonstrates the potential of in-game text understanding to improve recommendation quality on Roblox and adapt recommendations to its unique, user-generated ecosystem.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown promising capabilities but struggle under distribution shifts, where evaluation data differ from instruction tuning distributions. Although previous works have provided empirical evaluations, we argue that establishing a formal framework that can characterize and quantify the risk of MLLMs is necessary to ensure the safe and reliable application of MLLMs in the real world. By taking an information-theoretic perspective, we propose the first theoretical framework that enables the quantification of the maximum risk of MLLMs under distribution shifts. Central to our framework is the introduction of Effective Mutual Information (EMI), a principled metric that quantifies the relevance between input queries and model responses. We derive an upper bound for the EMI difference between in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) data, connecting it to visual and textual distributional discrepancies. Extensive experiments on real benchmark datasets, spanning 61 shift scenarios empirically validate our theoretical insights.

Classification tasks are widely investigated in the In-Context Learning (ICL) paradigm. However, current efforts are evaluated on disjoint benchmarks and settings, while their performances are significantly influenced by some trivial variables, such as prompt templates, data sampling, instructions, etc., which leads to significant inconsistencies in the results reported across various literature, preventing fair comparison or meta-analysis across different papers. Therefore, this paper proposes a standardized and easy-to-use evaluation toolkit (StaICC) for in-context classification. Including, for the normal classification task, we provide StaICC-Normal, selecting 10 widely used datasets, and generating prompts with a fixed form, to mitigate the variance among the experiment implementations. To enrich the usage of our benchmark, we also provide a sub-benchmark StaICC-Diag for diagnosing ICL from several aspects, aiming for a more robust inference processing.

We propose a theoretical framework demonstrating that popular Large Language Model (LLM) alignment methods, including Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and alternatives, fundamentally function as divergence estimators between aligned (preferred or safe) and unaligned (less-preferred or harmful) distributions. This explains the separation phenomenon between safe and harmful prompts in the model hidden representation after alignment. Inspired by the theoretical results, we identify that some alignment methods are better than others in terms of separation and, introduce a new method, KLDO, and further demonstrate the implication of our theories. We advocate for compliance-refusal datasets over preference datasets to enhance safety alignment, supported by both theoretical reasoning and empirical evidence. Additionally, to quantify safety separation, we leverage a distance metric in the representation space and statistically validate its efficacy as a statistical significant indicator of LLM resilience against jailbreak attacks.