Marjana Prifti Skenduli

Alexander K. Saeri, Jess Graham, Michael Noetel et al.

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

Angelika Romanou, Negar Foroutan, Anna Sotnikova et al.

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (\ie, multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

Surangika Ranathunga, En-Shiun Annie Lee, Marjana Prifti Skenduli et al.

Neural Machine Translation (NMT) has seen a tremendous spurt of growth in less than ten years, and has already entered a mature phase. While considered as the most widely used solution for Machine Translation, its performance on low-resource language pairs still remains sub-optimal compared to the high-resource counterparts, due to the unavailability of large parallel corpora. Therefore, the implementation of NMT techniques for low-resource language pairs has been receiving the spotlight in the recent NMT research arena, thus leading to a substantial amount of research reported on this topic. This paper presents a detailed survey of research advancements in low-resource language NMT (LRL-NMT), along with a quantitative analysis aimed at identifying the most popular solutions. Based on our findings from reviewing previous work, this survey paper provides a set of guidelines to select the possible NMT technique for a given LRL data setting. It also presents a holistic view of the LRL-NMT research landscape and provides a list of recommendations to further enhance the research efforts on LRL-NMT.