Shiri Dori-Hacohen

Benjamin S. Bucknall, Shiri Dori-Hacohen

There is a substantial and ever-growing corpus of evidence and literature exploring the impacts of Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society, politics, and humanity as a whole. A separate, parallel body of work has explored existential risks to humanity, including but not limited to that stemming from unaligned Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). In this paper, we problematise the notion that current and near-term artificial intelligence technologies have the potential to contribute to existential risk by acting as intermediate risk factors, and that this potential is not limited to the unaligned AGI scenario. We propose the hypothesis that certain already-documented effects of AI can act as existential risk factors, magnifying the likelihood of previously identified sources of existential risk. Moreover, future developments in the coming decade hold the potential to significantly exacerbate these risk factors, even in the absence of artificial general intelligence. Our main contribution is a (non-exhaustive) exposition of potential AI risk factors and the causal relationships between them, focusing on how AI can affect power dynamics and information security. This exposition demonstrates that there exist causal pathways from AI systems to existential risks that do not presuppose hypothetical future AI capabilities.

Gavin Butts, Pegah Emdad, Jethro Lee et al.

There have been growing concerns around high-stake applications that rely on models trained with biased data, which consequently produce biased predictions, often harming the most vulnerable. In particular, biased medical data could cause health-related applications and recommender systems to create outputs that jeopardize patient care and widen disparities in health outcomes. A recent framework titled Fairness via AI posits that, instead of attempting to correct model biases, researchers must focus on their root causes by using AI to debias data. Inspired by this framework, we tackle bias detection in medical curricula using NLP models, including LLMs, and evaluate them on a gold standard dataset containing 4,105 excerpts annotated by medical experts for bias from a large corpus. We build on previous work by coauthors which augments the set of negative samples with non-annotated text containing social identifier terms. However, some of these terms, especially those related to race and ethnicity, can carry different meanings (e.g., "white matter of spinal cord"). To address this issue, we propose the use of Word Sense Disambiguation models to refine dataset quality by removing irrelevant sentences. We then evaluate fine-tuned variations of BERT models as well as GPT models with zero- and few-shot prompting. We found LLMs, considered SOTA on many NLP tasks, unsuitable for bias detection, while fine-tuned BERT models generally perform well across all evaluated metrics.

Chiman Salavati, Shannon Song, Willmar Sosa Diaz et al.

Biased information (recently termed bisinformation) continues to be taught in medical curricula, often long after having been debunked. In this paper, we introduce BRICC, a firstin-class initiative that seeks to mitigate medical bisinformation using machine learning to systematically identify and flag text with potential biases, for subsequent review in an expert-in-the-loop fashion, thus greatly accelerating an otherwise labor-intensive process. A gold-standard BRICC dataset was developed throughout several years, and contains over 12K pages of instructional materials. Medical experts meticulously annotated these documents for bias according to comprehensive coding guidelines, emphasizing gender, sex, age, geography, ethnicity, and race. Using this labeled dataset, we trained, validated, and tested medical bias classifiers. We test three classifier approaches: a binary type-specific classifier, a general bias classifier; an ensemble combining bias type-specific classifiers independently-trained; and a multitask learning (MTL) model tasked with predicting both general and type-specific biases. While MTL led to some improvement on race bias detection in terms of F1-score, it did not outperform binary classifiers trained specifically on each task. On general bias detection, the binary classifier achieves up to 0.923 of AUC, a 27.8% improvement over the baseline. This work lays the foundations for debiasing medical curricula by exploring a novel dataset and evaluating different training model strategies. Hence, it offers new pathways for more nuanced and effective mitigation of bisinformation.

Michael Shliselberg, Ashkan Kazemi, Scott A. Hale et al.

Diaspora communities are disproportionately impacted by off-the-radar misinformation and often neglected by mainstream fact-checking efforts, creating a critical need to scale-up efforts of nascent fact-checking initiatives. In this paper we present SynDy, a framework for Synthetic Dynamic Dataset Generation to leverage the capabilities of the largest frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) to train local, specialized language models. To the best of our knowledge, SynDy is the first paper utilizing LLMs to create fine-grained synthetic labels for tasks of direct relevance to misinformation mitigation, namely Claim Matching, Topical Clustering, and Claim Relationship Classification. SynDy utilizes LLMs and social media queries to automatically generate distantly-supervised, topically-focused datasets with synthetic labels on these three tasks, providing essential tools to scale up human-led fact-checking at a fraction of the cost of human-annotated data. Training on SynDy's generated labels shows improvement over a standard baseline and is not significantly worse compared to training on human labels (which may be infeasible to acquire). SynDy is being integrated into Meedan's chatbot tiplines that are used by over 50 organizations, serve over 230K users annually, and automatically distribute human-written fact-checks via messaging apps such as WhatsApp. SynDy will also be integrated into our deployed Co-Insights toolkit, enabling low-resource organizations to launch tiplines for their communities. Finally, we envision SynDy enabling additional fact-checking tools such as matching new misinformation claims to high-quality explainers on common misinformation topics.

Chiman Salavati, Shannon Song, Scott A. Hale et al.

The use of inappropriate language -- such as outdated, exclusionary, or non-patient-centered terms -- medical instructional materials can significantly influence clinical training, patient interactions, and health outcomes. Despite their reputability, many materials developed over past decades contain examples now considered inappropriate by current medical standards. Given the volume of curricular content, manually identifying instances of inappropriate use of language (IUL) and its subcategories for systematic review is prohibitively costly and impractical. To address this challenge, we conduct a first-in-class evaluation of small language models (SLMs) fine-tuned on labeled data and pre-trained LLMs with in-context learning on a dataset containing approximately 500 documents and over 12,000 pages. For SLMs, we consider: (1) a general IUL classifier, (2) subcategory-specific binary classifiers, (3) a multilabel classifier, and (4) a two-stage hierarchical pipeline for general IUL detection followed by multilabel classification. For LLMs, we consider variations of prompts that include subcategory definitions and/or shots. We found that both LLama-3 8B and 70B, even with carefully curated shots, are largely outperformed by SLMs. While the multilabel classifier performs best on annotated data, supplementing training with unflagged excerpts as negative examples boosts the specific classifiers' AUC by up to 25%, making them most effective models for mitigating harmful language in medical curricula.

Ryan Lagasse, Aidan Kierans, Avijit Ghosh et al.

We introduce a scaling law for fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) under fixed compute budgets that explicitly accounts for data composition. Conventional approaches measure training data solely by total tokens, yet the number of examples and their average token length -- what we term \emph{dataset volume} -- play a decisive role in model performance. Our formulation is tuned following established procedures. Experiments on the BRICC dataset \cite{salavati2024reducing} and subsets of the MMLU dataset \cite{hendrycks2021measuringmassivemultitasklanguage}, evaluated under multiple subsampling strategies, reveal that data composition significantly affects token efficiency. These results motivate refined scaling laws for practical LLM fine-tuning in resource-constrained settings.

Aidan Kierans, Avijit Ghosh, Hananel Hazan et al.

Existing work on the alignment problem has focused mainly on (1) qualitative descriptions of the alignment problem; (2) attempting to align AI actions with human interests by focusing on value specification and learning; and/or (3) focusing on a single agent or on humanity as a monolith. Recent sociotechnical approaches highlight the need to understand complex misalignment among multiple human and AI agents. We address this gap by adapting a computational social science model of human contention to the alignment problem. Our model quantifies misalignment in large, diverse agent groups with potentially conflicting goals across various problem areas. Misalignment scores in our framework depend on the observed agent population, the domain in question, and conflict between agents' weighted preferences. Through simulations, we demonstrate how our model captures intuitive aspects of misalignment across different scenarios. We then apply our model to two case studies, including an autonomous vehicle setting, showcasing its practical utility. Our approach offers enhanced explanatory power for complex sociotechnical environments and could inform the design of more aligned AI systems in real-world applications.

Shiri Dori-Hacohen, Roberto Montenegro, Fabricio Murai et al.

Most Fairness in AI research focuses on exposing biases in AI systems. A broader lens on fairness reveals that AI can serve a greater aspiration: rooting out societal inequities from their source. Specifically, we focus on inequities in health information, and aim to reduce bias in that domain using AI. The AI algorithms under the hood of search engines and social media, many of which are based on recommender systems, have an outsized impact on the quality of medical and health information online. Therefore, embedding bias detection and reduction into these recommender systems serving up medical and health content online could have an outsized positive impact on patient outcomes and wellbeing. In this position paper, we offer the following contributions: (1) we propose a novel framework of Fairness via AI, inspired by insights from medical education, sociology and antiracism; (2) we define a new term, bisinformation, which is related to, but distinct from, misinformation, and encourage researchers to study it; (3) we propose using AI to study, detect and mitigate biased, harmful, and/or false health information that disproportionately hurts minority groups in society; and (4) we suggest several pillars and pose several open problems in order to seed inquiry in this new space. While part (3) of this work specifically focuses on the health domain, the fundamental computer science advances and contributions stemming from research efforts in bias reduction and Fairness via AI have broad implications in all areas of society.

Laura Dietz, Bhaskar Mitra, Jeremy Pickens et al.

The vision of HIPstIR is that early stage information retrieval (IR) researchers get together to develop a future for non-mainstream ideas and research agendas in IR. The first iteration of this vision materialized in the form of a three day workshop in Portsmouth, New Hampshire attended by 24 researchers across academia and industry. Attendees pre-submitted one or more topics that they want to pitch at the meeting. Then over the three days during the workshop, we self-organized into groups and worked on six specific proposals of common interest. In this report, we present an overview of the workshop and brief summaries of the six proposals that resulted from the workshop.

Shiri Dori-Hacohen, Myungha Jang, James Allan

A growing body of research focuses on computationally detecting controversial topics and understanding the stances people hold on them. Yet gaps remain in our theoretical and practical understanding of how to define controversy, how it manifests, and how to measure it. In this paper, we introduce a novel measure we call "contention", defined with respect to a topic and a population. We model contention from a mathematical standpoint. We validate our model by examining a diverse set of sources: real-world polling data sets, actual voter data, and Twitter coverage on several topics. In our publicly-released Twitter data set of nearly 100M tweets, we examine several topics such as Brexit, the 2016 U.S. Elections, and "The Dress", and cross-reference them with other sources. We demonstrate that the contention measure holds explanatory power for a wide variety of observed phenomena, such as controversies over climate change and other topics that are well within scientific consensus. Finally, we re-examine the notion of controversy, and present a theoretical framework that defines it in terms of population. We present preliminary evidence suggesting that contention is one dimension of controversy, along with others, such as "importance". Our new contention measure, along with the hypothesized model of controversy, suggest several avenues for future work in this emerging interdisciplinary research area.