Recent work in reframing, within the scope of text style transfer, has so far made use of out-of-context, task-prompted utterances in order to produce neutralizing or optimistic reframes. Our work aims to generalize reframing based on the subreddit r/ChangeMyView (CMV). We build a dataset that leverages CMV's community's interactions and conventions to identify high-value, community-recognized utterances that produce changes of perspective. With this data, we widen the scope of the direction of reframing since the changes in perspective do not only occur in neutral or positive directions. We fine tune transformer-based models, make use of a modern LLM to refine our dataset, and explore challenges in the dataset creation and evaluation around this type of reframing.

Active inference is a leading theory of perception, learning and decision making, which can be applied to neuroscience, robotics, psychology, and machine learning. Active inference is based on the expected free energy, which is mostly justified by the intuitive plausibility of its formulations, e.g., the risk plus ambiguity and information gain / pragmatic value formulations. This paper seek to formalize the problem of deriving these formulations from a single root expected free energy definition, i.e., the unification problem. Then, we study two settings, each one having its own root expected free energy definition. In the first setting, no justification for the expected free energy has been proposed to date, but all the formulations can be recovered from it. However, in this setting, the agent cannot have arbitrary prior preferences over observations. Indeed, only a limited class of prior preferences over observations is compatible with the likelihood mapping of the generative model. In the second setting, a justification of the root expected free energy definition is known, but this setting only accounts for two formulations, i.e., the risk over states plus ambiguity and entropy plus expected energy formulations.

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have been the driving force behind many of the recent advances in machine learning. However, research has shown that DNNs are vulnerable to adversarial examples -- input samples that have been perturbed to force DNN-based models to make errors. As a result, Adversarial Machine Learning (AdvML) has gained a lot of attention, and researchers have investigated these vulnerabilities in various settings and modalities. In addition, DNNs have also been found to incorporate embedded bias and often produce unexplainable predictions, which can result in anti-social AI applications. The emergence of new AI technologies that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT and GPT-4, increases the risk of producing anti-social applications at scale. AdvML for Social Good (AdvML4G) is an emerging field that repurposes the AdvML bug to invent pro-social applications. Regulators, practitioners, and researchers should collaborate to encourage the development of pro-social applications and hinder the development of anti-social ones. In this work, we provide the first comprehensive review of the emerging field of AdvML4G. This paper encompasses a taxonomy that highlights the emergence of AdvML4G, a discussion of the differences and similarities between AdvML4G and AdvML, a taxonomy covering social good-related concepts and aspects, an exploration of the motivations behind the emergence of AdvML4G at the intersection of ML4G and AdvML, and an extensive summary of the works that utilize AdvML4G as an auxiliary tool for innovating pro-social applications. Finally, we elaborate upon various challenges and open research issues that require significant attention from the research community.

Of all the tools managers use to lead their businesses, thinking is the most crucial. It involves two distinct ways of processing information: intuitive and conscious, which the Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman labeled thinking fast and slow. Today computers increasingly outperform people in both. With their raw calculative power, computers easily beat humans in conscious-reasoning tasks, as long as the rules and parameters of the situation are known. Managers routinely turn to mathematical optimization and simulation to build investment portfolios, make pricing decisions, and understand supply-chain risks.

Future of work initiatives promise lots of noise and lots of activity, but to what end? When it comes to the future of work, many organizations are missing the point. Executives are creating new future of work initiatives every day, but to what end? Many of these initiatives suffer from being too reactive. For instance, managers may feel pressure to reduce costs by 20%, or the board might ask what the company is doing with machine learning and AI, but there are bigger and better goals leaders can aim for, and it's a critical time for organizations to focus their efforts.