Software programmers, accountants, receptionists and advertising and marketing professionals are among the most at risk of losing their jobs to AI, according to a government report. Software programmers, accountants, receptionists and advertising and marketing professionals are among the most at risk of losing their jobs to AI, according to a government report. Artificial intelligence has yet to cause widespread job losses but the federal government has warned that telemarketers, advertising staff and accountants are among the occupations "most exposed" to being replaced by the technology. According to a first-of-its-kind national report, people in the more exposed occupations are more likely to be women and have university qualifications. They include clerks, retail managers, software programmers, accountants, receptionists and advertising and marketing professionals, according to data from Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA) contained in the AI and Employment in Australia report. Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email Jobs deemed as the "least exposed" to AI displacement are filled by those with the lowest level of university qualifications and the highest level of vocational training, including tradespeople and aged care workers.

The use of large language models (LLMs) to simulate human behavior has gained significant attention, particularly through personas that approximate individual characteristics. Persona-based simulations hold promise for transforming disciplines that rely on population-level feedback, including social science, economic analysis, marketing research, and business operations. Traditional methods to collect realistic persona data face significant challenges: they are prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging due to privacy constraints, and often fail to capture multi-dimensional attributes, particularly subjective qualities. Consequently, synthetic persona generation with LLMs offers a scalable, cost-effective alternative. However, current approaches rely on ad hoc and heuristic generation techniques that do not guarantee methodological rigor or simulation precision, resulting in systematic biases in downstream tasks. Through extensive large-scale experiments including presidential election forecasts and general opinion surveys of the U.S. population, we reveal that these biases can lead to significant deviations from real-world outcomes. Based on the experimental results, this position paper argues that a rigorous and systematic science of persona generation is needed to ensure the reliability of LLM-driven simulations of human behavior. We call for not only methodological innovations and empirical foundations but also interdisciplinary organizational and institutional support for the development of this field. To support further research and development in this area, we have opensourced approximately one million generated personas, available for public access and analysis at Tianyi-Lab/Personas.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in sensitive domains, where their ability to infer personal data from seemingly benign text introduces emerging privacy risks. While recent LLM-based anonymization methods help mitigate such risks, they often rely on proprietary models (e.g., GPT-4), raising concerns about cost and the potential exposure of sensitive data to untrusted external systems. To address this, we introduce SElf-refining Anonymization with Language model (SEAL), a novel distillation framework for training small language models (SLMs) to perform effective anonymization without relying on external models at inference time. SEAL leverages adversarial interactions between an LLM anonymizer and an inference model to collect trajectories of anonymized texts and inferred attributes, which are then used to distill anonymization and critique capabilities into SLMs through supervised fine-tuning and preference learning. The resulting models learn both to anonymize text and to evaluate their outputs, enabling iterative improvement of anonymization quality via self-refinement. Experiments on SynthPAI, a dataset of synthetic personal profiles and text comments, demonstrate that SLMs trained with SEAL achieve substantial improvements in anonymization capabilities. Notably, 8B models attain a privacy-utility trade-off comparable to that of the GPT-4 anonymizer and, with self-refinement, even surpass it in terms of privacy protection.

Large language models have been widely integrated into information retrieval to advance traditional techniques. However, effectively enabling LLMs to seek accurate knowledge in complex tasks remains a challenge due to the complexity of multi-hop queries as well as the irrelevant retrieved content. To address these limitations, we propose EXSEARCH, an agentic search framework, where the LLM learns to retrieve useful information as the reasoning unfolds through a selfincentivized process. At each step, the LLM decides what to retrieve (thinking), triggers an external retriever (search), and extracts fine-grained evidence (recording) to support next-step reasoning. To enable LLM with this capability, EXSEARCH adopts a generalized expectation-maximization algorithm.

To recognize and mitigate the harms of generative AI systems, it is crucial to consider whether and how different societal groups are represented by these systems. A critical gap emerges when naively measuring or improving who is represented, as this does not consider how people are represented. In this work, we develop GAS(P), an evaluation methodology for surfacing distribution-level group representational biases in generated text, tackling the setting where groups are unprompted (i.e., groups are not specified in the input to generative systems). We apply this novel methodology to investigate gendered representations in occupations across state-of-the-art large language models. We show that, even though the gender distribution when models are prompted to generate biographies leads to a large representation of women, even representational biases persist in how different genders are represented. Our evaluation methodology reveals that there are statistically significant distribution-level differences in the word choice used to describe biographies and personas of different genders across occupations, and we show that many of these differences are associated with representational harms and stereotypes. Our empirical findings caution that naively increasing (unprompted) representation may inadvertently proliferate representational biases, and our proposed evaluation methodology enables systematic and rigorous measurement of the problem.

We introduce the Deep Value Benchmark (DVB), an evaluation framework that directly tests whether large language models (LLMs) learn fundamental human values or merely surface-level preferences. This distinction is critical for AI alignment: Systems that capture deeper values are likely to generalize human intentions robustly, while those that capture only superficial patterns in preference data risk producing misaligned behavior. The DVB uses a novel experimental design with controlled confounding between deep values (e.g., moral principles) and shallow features (e.g., superficial attributes). In the training phase, we expose LLMs to human preference data with deliberately correlated deep and shallow features--for instance, where a user consistently prefers (non-maleficence, formal language) options over (justice, informal language) alternatives. The testing phase then breaks these correlations, presenting choices between (justice, formal language) and (non-maleficence, informal language) options.

To recognize and mitigate the harms of generative AI systems, it is crucial to consider whether and how different societal groups are represented by these systems. A critical gap emerges when naively measuring or improving is represented, as this does not consider people are represented. In this work, we develop GAS(P), an evaluation methodology for surfacing distribution-level group representational biases in generated text, tackling the setting where groups are unprompted (i.e., groups are not specified in the input to generative systems). We apply this novel methodology to investigate gendered representations in occupations across state-of-the-art large language models. We show that, even though the gender distribution when models are prompted to generate biographies leads to a large representation of women, even representational biases persist in how different genders are represented. Our evaluation methodology reveals that there are statistically significant distribution-level differences in the word choice used to describe biographies and personas of different genders across occupations, and we show that many of these differences are associated with representational harms and stereotypes. Our empirical findings caution that naively increasing (unprompted) representation may inadvertently proliferate representational biases, and our proposed evaluation methodology enables systematic and rigorous measurement of the problem.

Plus: The Pope has called for governments to regulate AI. Despite the growing hysteria over AI's threat to white-collar jobs, there's still scant evidence that the technology has had a large-scale impact on the labor market. Analysis of US labor data shows that unemployment in occupations most exposed to AI is actually lower than in less-exposed jobs. There are also no signs that large numbers of workers are shifting from AI-threatened professions into supposedly safer manual-labor jobs. It's true that things aren't great in the job market--but the question is why. Here's what the data really says about AI and jobs .

The capabilities of natural language models trained on large-scale data have increased immensely over the past few years. Open source libraries such as HuggingFace have made these models easily available and accessible. While prior research has identified biases in large language models, this paper considers biases contained in the most popular versions of these models when applied'out-of-the-box' for downstream tasks. We focus on generative language models as they are well-suited for extracting biases inherited from training data. Specifically, we conduct an indepth analysis of GPT-2, which is the most downloaded text generation model on HuggingFace, with over half a million downloads per month. We assess biases related to occupational associations for different protected categories by intersecting gender with religion, sexuality, ethnicity, political affiliation, and continental name origin. Using a template-based data collection pipeline, we collect 396K sentence completions made by GPT-2 and find: (i) The machine-predicted jobs are less diverse and more stereotypical for women than for men, especially for intersections; (ii) Intersectional interactions are highly relevant for occupational associations, which we quantify by fitting 262 logistic models; (iii) For most occupations, GPT-2 reflects the skewed gender and ethnicity distribution found in USLabor Bureau data, and even pulls the societally-skewed distribution towards gender parity in cases where its predictions deviate from real labor market observations. This raises the normative question of what language models should learn - whether they should reflect or correct for existing inequalities.