Follow this section to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW? Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens. Follow this tag to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW?

Bill Gates says we've passed AI's danger thresholds. In a new interview, the billionaire philanthropist sounds an alarm on the urgency of getting our AI policies in order. The temperature is in the mid-80s, and the sky is incapable of being any more blue. The view from the Gates Ventures conference room overlooks the Carillon Point Marina, where a flotilla of expensive boats bob in the water, and across the lake to the Olympic Mountains that define the horizon. Because if the scene is placid, the messenger is not. Seated across from me at a conference room table, Bill Gates is rocking back and forth in his chair, totally animated. And the more he has to say--about the threats of terror or economic collapse or just losing control of our AI systems--the more agitated I find myself becoming, too. The philanthropist and former Microsoft CEO says he has been growing increasingly alarmed by the rate of change at which AI technology is advancing, especially since guardrails are not keeping pace. In a new essay published today, Gates argues that we have passed the points where multiple potential dangers should have been checked. "We've crossed the threshold in terms of [AI's] bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control," he said in an interview with about his new memo "I'm just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry." In an effort to wake the world up to what he sees as a rapidly growing societal disrupter, the 70-year-old tech titan has begun sounding the alarm as a "shrill voice," both publicly with his new essay (the first of multiple he plans on the topic) and in meetings with the press, and privately in conversations with industry, government, and civil society leaders. And while Gates is calling attention to a number of issues, his warnings about the bio-capabilities of the current frontier models are especially chilling. "Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored," he says.

Near the Kremlin several dozen people are queuing outside the presidential administration office. They've come to submit petitions calling on President Vladimir Putin to end a crackdown on the internet. Russian authorities have been tightening control of the country's cyber space. Access to global messaging apps has been restricted and there are widespread disruptions to, even shutdowns of, mobile internet. Petitioning the president is legal.

Figure dynamics into predict learning from green.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized by researchers across a wide range of domains, and qualitative social science is no exception; however, this adoption faces persistent challenges, including interpretive bias, low reliability, and weak auditability. We introduce a framework that situates LLM usage along two dimensions, interpretive depth and autonomy, thereby offering a straightforward way to classify LLM applications in qualitative research and to derive practical design recommendations. We present the state of the literature with respect to these two dimensions, based on all published social science papers available on Web of Science that use LLMs as a tool and not strictly as the subject of study. Rather than granting models expansive freedom, our approach encourages researchers to decompose tasks into manageable segments, much as they would when delegating work to capable undergraduate research assistants. By maintaining low levels of autonomy and selectively increasing interpretive depth only where warranted and under supervision, one can plausibly reap the benefits of LLMs while preserving transparency and reliability.

Aligning AI systems with human privacy preferences requires understanding individuals' nuanced disclosure behaviors beyond general norms. Yet eliciting such boundaries remains challenging due to the context-dependent nature of privacy decisions and the complex trade-offs involved. We present an AI-powered elicitation approach that probes individuals' privacy boundaries through a discriminative task. We conducted a between-subjects study that systematically varied communication roles and delegation conditions, resulting in 1,681 boundary specifications from 169 participants for 61 scenarios. We examined how these contextual factors and individual differences influence the boundary specification. Quantitative results show that communication roles influence individuals' acceptance of detailed and identifiable disclosure, AI delegation and individuals' need for privacy heighten sensitivity to disclosed identifiers, and AI delegation results in less consensus across individuals. Our findings highlight the importance of situating privacy preference elicitation within real-world data flows. We advocate using nuanced privacy boundaries as an alignment goal for future AI systems.