TECHNOLOGY IT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHATGPT Illustration picture shows the ChatGPT artificial intelligence software, which generates human-like conversation, Friday 03 February 2023 in Lierde. TECHNOLOGY IT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CHATGPT Illustration picture shows the ChatGPT artificial intelligence software, which generates human-like conversation, Friday 03 February 2023 in Lierde. A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is the latest research to find that relying too much on chatbots can diminish critical-thinking skills, and potentially decrease our ability to discern misinformation for ourselves. As AI tools are becoming more sophisticated and accessible, manipulated images and misleading headlines are becoming more common. AI can be part of the solution, and has proved useful in helping users identify fake content - but there's a cost to using it this way, the new research suggests.

To address these challenges, we introduce Refer-Judge, a novel framework that harnesses the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to identify and mitigate toxic data. At the core of Refer-Judge is a Jury-andJudge Chain-of-Thought paradigm, inspired by the deliberative process of the judicial system. This framework targets the root causes of annotation noise: jurors collaboratively assess 3DVG samples from diverse perspectives, providing structured, multi-faceted evaluations. Judges then consolidate these insights using a Corroborative Refinement strategy, which adaptively reorganizes information to correct ambiguities arising from biased or incomplete observations. Through this two-stage deliberation, Refer-Judge significantly enhances the reliability of data judgments. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework not only achieves human-level discrimination at the scene level but also improves the performance of baseline algorithms via data purification. Code is available at https://github.com/Hermione-HKX/Refer_Judge.

Moral judgment is integral to large language models' (LLMs) social reasoning. As multi-agent systems gain prominence, it becomes crucial to understand how LLMs function when collaborating compared to operating as individual agents. In human moral judgment, group deliberation leads to a Utilitarian Boost: a tendency to endorse norm violations that inflict harm but maximize benefits for the greatest number of people. We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems. We test six models on well-established sets of moral dilemmas across two conditions: (1) Solo, where models reason independently, and (2) Group, where they engage in multi-turn discussions in pairs or triads.

Large language models are increasingly used as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs at scale, but their assessments often diverge systematically from human judgments.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising tool for automatically evaluating generated outputs, but its reliability is often undermined by potential biases in judgment. Existing efforts to mitigate these biases face key limitations: in-context learning-based methods fail to address rooted biases due to the evaluator's limited capacity for self-reflection, whereas fine-tuning is not applicable to all evaluator types, especially closed-source models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Reasoning-based Bias Detector (RBD), which is a plug-in module that identifies biased evaluations and generates structured reasoning to guide evaluator self-correction. Rather than modifying the evaluator itself, RBD operates externally and engages in an iterative process of bias detection and feedback-driven revision. To support its development, we design a complete pipeline consisting of biased dataset construction, supervision collection, distilled reasoning-based fine-tuning of RBD, and integration with LLM evaluators. We fine-tune four sizes of RBD models, ranging from 1.5B to 14B, and observe consistent performance improvements across all scales. Experimental results on 4 bias types--verbosity, position, bandwagon, and sentiment--evaluated using 8 LLM evaluators demonstrate RBD's strong effectiveness. For example, the RBD-8B model improves evaluation accuracy by an average of 18.5% and consistency by 10.9%, and surpasses prompting-based baselines and fine-tuned judges by 12.8% and 17.2%, respectively.

Christopher Marquis is a professor at the University of Cambridge and the author of The Profiteers. In 1930, in the depths of the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes wrote a short essay called . It is often remembered for one striking prediction: by 2030, people in wealthy countries might only need to work about 15 hours a week. What Keynes imagined was a society advanced enough to solve what he called the "economic problem" of basic material provision. If technology kept improving, and societies kept growing richer, then fewer hours of human labor would be needed to produce the necessities and comforts of life.

Anthropic announced "dreaming" for AI agents to sort through "memories" at its developer conference. Anthropic just announced a new feature called "dreaming" at the company's developer conference in San Francisco. It's part of Anthropic's recently launched AI agent infrastructure designed to help users manage and deploy tools that automate software processes. This "dreaming" aspect sorts through the transcript of what an agent recently completed and attempts to glean insights to improve the agent's performance. Folks using AI agents often send them on multistep journeys, like visiting a few websites or reading multiple files, to complete online tasks.

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.