The potential for negative impacts of AI has rapidly become more pervasive around the world, and this has intensified a need for responsible AI governance. While many regulatory bodies endorse risk-based approaches and a multitude of risk mitigation practices are proposed by companies and academic scholars, these approaches are commonly expert-centered and thus lack the inclusion of a significant group of stakeholders. Ensuring that AI policies align with democratic expectations requires methods that prioritize the voices and needs of those impacted. In this work we develop a participative and forward-looking approach to inform policy-makers and academics that grounds the needs of lay stakeholders at the forefront and enriches the development of risk mitigation strategies. Our approach (1) maps potential mitigation and prevention strategies of negative AI impacts that assign responsibility to various stakeholders, (2) explores the importance and prioritization thereof in the eyes of laypeople, and (3) presents these insights in policy fact sheets, i.e., a digestible format for informing policy processes. We emphasize that this approach is not targeted towards replacing policy-makers; rather our aim is to present an informative method that enriches mitigation strategies and enables a more participatory approach to policy development.

The rapid advancement of AI technologies yields numerous future impacts on individuals and society. Policy-makers are therefore tasked to react quickly and establish policies that mitigate those impacts. However, anticipating the effectiveness of policies is a difficult task, as some impacts might only be observable in the future and respective policies might not be applicable to the future development of AI. In this work we develop a method for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate the efficacy of a given piece of policy at mitigating specified negative impacts. We do so by using GPT-4 to generate scenarios both pre- and post-introduction of policy and translating these vivid stories into metrics based on human perceptions of impacts. We leverage an already established taxonomy of impacts of generative AI in the media environment to generate a set of scenario pairs both mitigated and non-mitigated by the transparency legislation of Article 50 of the EU AI Act. We then run a user study (n=234) to evaluate these scenarios across four risk-assessment dimensions: severity, plausibility, magnitude, and specificity to vulnerable populations. We find that this transparency legislation is perceived to be effective at mitigating harms in areas such as labor and well-being, but largely ineffective in areas such as social cohesion and security. Through this case study on generative AI harms we demonstrate the efficacy of our method as a tool to iterate on the effectiveness of policy on mitigating various negative impacts. We expect this method to be useful to researchers or other stakeholders who want to brainstorm the potential utility of different pieces of policy or other mitigation strategies.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors are widely adopted as higher investment return indicators. Accordingly, ongoing efforts are being made to automate ESG evaluation with language models to extract signals from massive web text easily. However, recent approaches suffer from a lack of training data, as rating agencies keep their evaluation metrics confidential. This paper investigates whether state-of-the-art language models like GPT-4 can be guided to align with unknown ESG evaluation criteria through strategies such as prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, and dynamic in-context learning. We demonstrate the efficacy of these approaches by ranking 2nd in the Shared-Task ML-ESG-3 Impact Type track for Korean without updating the model on the provided training data. We also explore how adjusting prompts impacts the ability of language models to address financial tasks leveraging smaller models with openly available weights. We observe longer general pre-training to correlate with enhanced performance in financial downstream tasks. Our findings showcase the potential of language models to navigate complex, subjective evaluation guidelines despite lacking explicit training examples, revealing opportunities for training-free solutions for financial downstream tasks.

Objective: Traumatic brain injury can be caused by head impacts, but many brain injury risk estimation models are not equally accurate across the variety of impacts that patients may undergo and the characteristics of different types of impacts are not well studied. We investigated the spectral characteristics of different head impact types with kinematics classification. Methods: Data was analyzed from 3,262 head impacts from lab reconstruction, American football, mixed martial arts, and publicly available car crash data. A random forest classifier with spectral densities of linear acceleration and angular velocity was built to classify head impact types (e.g., football, car crash, mixed martial arts). To test the classifier robustness, another 271 lab-reconstructed impacts were obtained from 5 other instrumented mouthguards. Finally, with the classifier, type-specific, nearest-neighbor regression models were built for brain strain. Results: The classifier reached a median accuracy of 96% over 1,000 random partitions of training and test sets. The most important features in the classification included both low-frequency and high-frequency features, both linear acceleration features and angular velocity features. Different head impact types had different distributions of spectral densities in low-frequency and high-frequency ranges (e.g., the spectral densities of MMA impacts were higher in high-frequency range than in the low-frequency range). The type-specific regression showed a generally higher R^2-value than baseline models without classification. Conclusion: The machine-learning-based classifier enables a better understanding of the impact kinematics spectral density in different sports, and it can be applied to evaluate the quality of impact-simulation systems and on-field data augmentation.