Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly applied to identify unsafe or inappropriate images due to their internal ethical standards and powerful reasoning abilities. However, it is still unclear whether they can recognize various unsafe concepts when presented in different modalities, such as text and images. To address this, we first compile the UnsafeConcepts dataset, featuring 75 unsafe concepts, i.e., ``Swastika,'' ``Sexual Harassment,'' and ``Assaults,'' along with associated 1.5K images. We then conduct a systematic evaluation of VLMs' perception (concept recognition) and alignment (ethical reasoning) capabilities. We assess eight popular VLMs and find that, although most VLMs accurately perceive unsafe concepts, they sometimes mistakenly classify these concepts as safe. We also identify a consistent modality gap among open-source VLMs in distinguishing between visual and textual unsafe concepts. To bridge this gap, we introduce a simplified reinforcement learning (RL)-based approach using proximal policy optimization (PPO) to strengthen the ability to identify unsafe concepts from images. Our approach uses reward scores based directly on VLM responses, bypassing the need for collecting human-annotated preference data to train a new reward model. Experimental results show that our approach effectively enhances VLM alignment on images while preserving general capabilities. It outperforms baselines such as supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and direct preference optimization (DPO). We hope our dataset, evaluation findings, and proposed alignment solution contribute to the community's efforts in advancing safe VLMs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a ubiquitous concept in numerous domains, including the legal system. AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice. Incorporating AI into the legal system offers the prospect of enhancing decision-making for judges, lawyers, and legal professionals, while concurrently providing the public with more streamlined, efficient, and cost-effective services. The integration of AI into the legal landscape offers manifold benefits, encompassing tasks such as document review, legal research, contract analysis, case prediction, and decision-making. By automating laborious and error-prone procedures, AI has the capacity to alleviate the burden associated with these arduous tasks. Consequently, courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice. However, alongside its potential advantages, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges. These ethical quandaries must be duly addressed to ensure the responsible and equitable deployment of AI systems. This article delineates the principal ethical challenges entailed in employing AI within the judiciary and provides recommendations to effectively address these issues.

This paper addresses the ethical challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Neural Machine Translation (NMT) systems, emphasizing the imperative for developers to ensure fairness and cultural sensitivity. We investigate the ethical competence of AI models in NMT, examining the Ethical considerations at each stage of NMT development, including data handling, privacy, data ownership, and consent. We identify and address ethical issues through empirical studies. These include employing Transformer models for Luganda-English translations and enhancing efficiency with sentence mini-batching. And complementary studies that refine data labeling techniques and fine-tune BERT and Longformer models for analyzing Luganda and English social media content. Our second approach is a literature review from databases such as Google Scholar and platforms like GitHub. Additionally, the paper probes the distribution of responsibility between AI systems and humans, underscoring the essential role of human oversight in upholding NMT ethical standards. Incorporating a biblical perspective, we discuss the societal impact of NMT and the broader ethical responsibilities of developers, positing them as stewards accountable for the societal repercussions of their creations.

SMS phishing, also known as "smishing", is a growing threat that tricks users into disclosing private information or clicking into URLs with malicious content through fraudulent mobile text messages. In recent past, we have also observed a rapid advancement of conversational generative AI chatbot services (e.g., OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's BARD), which are powered by pre-trained large language models (LLMs). These AI chatbots certainly have a lot of utilities but it is not systematically understood how they can play a role in creating threats and attacks. In this paper, we propose AbuseGPT method to show how the existing generative AI-based chatbot services can be exploited by attackers in real world to create smishing texts and eventually lead to craftier smishing campaigns. To the best of our knowledge, there is no pre-existing work that evidently shows the impacts of these generative text-based models on creating SMS phishing. Thus, we believe this study is the first of its kind to shed light on this emerging cybersecurity threat. We have found strong empirical evidences to show that attackers can exploit ethical standards in the existing generative AI-based chatbot services by crafting prompt injection attacks to create newer smishing campaigns. We also discuss some future research directions and guidelines to protect the abuse of generative AI-based services and safeguard users from smishing attacks.

This study looks at how generative artificial intelligence (AI) can revolutionize marketing, product development, and research. It discusses the latest developments in the field, easy-to-use resources, and moral and social hazards. In addition to addressing mitigating techniques for issues like prejudice and disinformation, the debate emphasizes the significance of responsible development through continual stakeholder communication and ethical principles.

Elizabeth Holmes convinced investors and patients that she had a prototype of a microsampling machine that could run a wide range of relatively accurate tests using a fraction of the volume of blood usually required. She lied; the Edison and miniLab devices didn't work. Worse still, the company was aware they didn't work, but continued to give patients inaccurate information about their health, including telling healthy pregnant women that they were having miscarriages and producing false positives on cancer and HIV screenings. But Holmes, who has to report to prison by May 30, was convicted of defrauding investors; she wasn't convicted of defrauding patients. This is because the principles of ethics for disclosure to investors, and the legal mechanisms used to take action against fraudsters like Holmes, are well developed.

The entrepreneurial disruption phase of "move fast and break things" is being replaced with a mantra of "move fast and keep up" when it comes to applying ethical frameworks and leading practices to emerging technologies, according to a new study by Deloitte. The firm's first-ever State of Ethics and Trust in Technology annual report defines emerging technologies, identifies trustworthy and ethical standards, explains different approaches to operationalizing standards, and encourages actions that can be taken in the short term. Many companies want to be on the cutting edge of emerging technologies to stay competitive and gain benefits such as improved customer experience, operational efficiencies and newly-enabled use cases, according to Deloitte. "But these technologies are often being developed at such breakneck speeds that few companies are pausing to consider the ethical implications,'' the report noted. "With great power comes great responsibility.

Dr Asress Gikay argues that an outright ban on police use of live facial recognition technology would be a mistake. UK police are being accused of breaking ethical standards by using live facial recognition technology to help fight crime. A recent report by the University of Cambridge into trials of the technology by forces in London and South Wales was particularly concerned about the "lack of robust redress" for anyone suffering harm. It spoke of the need to "protect human rights and improve accountability" before facial recognition is used more widely. The Cambridge team wants a broad ban on police using the technology, and they are not alone.