The next time you apply for a job, AI may screen your résumé before any human sees it. But there's good reason to question whether AI will judge you fairly. Researchers already know that LLMs pick up human biases from their training data. New research suggests that LLMs can also develop their own biases from experience--and stereotype job applicants more than humans do. As AI companies race to build agentic models that remember the tiniest details about users, they may be handing them ammunition for forming those biases.

Rapid categorization paradigms have a long history in experimental psychology: Characterized by short presentation times and speeded behavioral responses, these tasks highlight the efficiency with which our visual system processes natural object categories. Previous studies have shown that feed-forward hierarchical models of the visual cortex provide a good fit to human visual decisions. At the same time, recent work in computer vision has demonstrated significant gains in object recognition accuracy with increasingly deep hierarchical architectures. But it is unclear how well these models account for human visual decisions and what they may reveal about the underlying brain processes. We have conducted a large-scale psychophysics study to assess the correlation between computational models and human behavioral responses on a rapid animal vs. non-animal categorization task. We considered visual representations of varying complexity by analyzing the output of different stages of processing in three stateof-the-art deep networks. We found that recognition accuracy increases with higher stages of visual processing (higher level stages indeed outperforming human participants on the same task) but that human decisions agree best with predictions from intermediate stages. Overall, these results suggest that human participants may rely on visual features of intermediate complexity and that the complexity of visual representations afforded by modern deep network models may exceed the complexity of those used by human participants during rapid categorization.

In some cases, ChatGPT's outputs went beyond those of the human participants, including personalised insults and explicit threats. In some cases, ChatGPT's outputs went beyond those of the human participants, including personalised insults and explicit threats. 'I'll key your car': ChatGPT can become abusive when fed real-life arguments, study finds ChatGPT can escalate into abusive and even threatening language when drawn into prolonged, human-style conflict, according to a new study. Researchers tested how large language models (LLMs) responded to sustained hostility by feeding ChatGPT exchanges from real-life arguments and tracking how its behaviour changed over time. One expert not connected with the study described it as "one of the most interesting ever done into AI language and pragmatics Dr Vittorio Tantucci, who co-authored the research paper with Prof Jonathan Culpeper at Lancaster University, said their research found AI mirrored the dynamics of real-world disputes.

Reconstructing past events requires reasoning across long time horizons. To figure out what happened, humans draw on prior knowledge about the world and human behavior and integrate insights from various sources of evidence including visual, language, and auditory cues. We introduce MARPLE, a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon inference capabilities using multi-modal evidence. Our benchmark features agents interacting with simulated households, supporting vision, language, and auditory stimuli, as well as procedurally generated environments and agent behaviors. Inspired by classic ``whodunit'' stories, we ask AI models and human participants to infer which agent caused a change in the environment based on a step-by-step replay of what actually happened.

Rapid categorization paradigms have a long history in experimental psychology: Characterized by short presentation times and speeded behavioral responses, these tasks highlight the efficiency with which our visual system processes natural object categories. Previous studies have shown that feed-forward hierarchical models of the visual cortex provide a good fit to human visual decisions. At the same time, recent work in computer vision has demonstrated significant gains in object recognition accuracy with increasingly deep hierarchical architectures. But it is unclear how well these models account for human visual decisions and what they may reveal about the underlying brain processes. We have conducted a large-scale psychophysics study to assess the correlation between computational models and human behavioral responses on a rapid animal vs. non-animal categorization task. We considered visual representations of varying complexity by analyzing the output of different stages of processing in three state-of-the-art deep networks. We found that recognition accuracy increases with higher stages of visual processing (higher level stages indeed outperforming human participants on the same task) but that human decisions agree best with predictions from intermediate stages. Overall, these results suggest that human participants may rely on visual features of intermediate complexity and that the complexity of visual representations afforded by modern deep network models may exceed the complexity of those used by human participants during rapid categorization.

Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable.