论文检索

Social Aspects · Accountability, Transparency, and Interpretability

Zhengxuan Wu, Aryaman Arora, Atticus Geiger, Zheng Wang, Jing Huang, Dan Jurafsky, Christopher Manning, Christopher Potts

Fine-grained steering of language model outputs is essential for safety and reliability. Prompting and finetuning are widely used to achieve these goals, but interpretability researchers have proposed a variety of representation-based techniques as well, including sparse autoencoders (SAEs), linear artificial tomography, supervised steering vectors, linear probes, and representation finetuning. At present, there is no benchmark for making direct comparisons between these proposals. Therefore, we introduce AxBench, a large-scale benchmark for steering and concept detection, and report experiments on Gemma-2-2B and 9B. For steering, we find that prompting outperforms all existing methods, followed by finetuning. For concept detection, representation-based methods such as difference-in-means, perform the best. On both evaluations, SAEs are not competitive. We introduce a novel weakly-supervised representational method (Rank-1 Representation Finetuning; ReFT-r1), which is competitive on both tasks while providing the interpretability advantages that prompting lacks. Along with AxBench, we train and publicly release SAE-scale feature dictionaries for ReFT-r1 and DiffMean.

Position · Methodology

Sarah Hartman, Cheng Soon Ong, Julia Powles, Petra Kuhnert

This position paper argues that achieving meaningful scientific and societal advances with artificial intelligence (AI) requires a responsible, application-driven approach (RAD) to AI research. As AI is increasingly integrated into society, AI researchers must engage with the specific contexts where AI is being applied. This includes being responsive to ethical and legal considerations, technical and societal constraints, and public discourse. We present the case for RAD-AI to drive research through a three-staged approach: (1) building transdisciplinary teams and people-centred studies; (2) addressing context-specific methods, ethical commitments, assumptions, and metrics; and (3) testing and sustaining efficacy through staged testbeds and a community of practice. We present a vision for the future of application-driven AI research to unlock new value through technically feasible methods that are adaptive to the contextual needs and values of the communities they ultimately serve.

Reinforcement Learning

Ruipeng Zhang, Ya-Chien Chang, Sicun Gao

The Maximum Entropy Reinforcement Learning (MaxEnt RL) framework is a leading approach for achieving efficient learning and robust performance across many RL tasks. However, MaxEnt methods have also been shown to struggle with performance-critical control problems in practice, where non-MaxEnt algorithms can successfully learn. In this work, we analyze how the trade-off between robustness and optimality affects the performance of MaxEnt algorithms in complex control tasks: while entropy maximization enhances exploration and robustness, it can also mislead policy optimization, leading to failure in tasks that require precise, low-entropy policies. Through experiments on a variety of control problems, we concretely demonstrate this misleading effect. Our analysis leads to better understanding of how to balance reward design and entropy maximization in challenging control problems.

Position · Risk_safety_policy

Sarah Meiklejohn, Hayden Blauzvern, Mihai Maruseac, Spencer Schrock, Laurent Simon, Ilia Shumailov

Powerful machine learning (ML) models are now readily available online, which creates exciting possibilities for users who lack the deep technical expertise or substantial computing resources needed to develop them. On the other hand, this type of open ecosystem comes with many risks. In this paper, we argue that the current ecosystem for open ML models contains significant *supply-chain* risks, some of which have been exploited already in real attacks. These include an attacker replacing a model with something malicious (e.g., malware), or a model being trained using a vulnerable version of a framework or on restricted or poisoned data. We then explore how Sigstore, a solution designed to bring transparency to open-source software supply chains, can be used to bring transparency to open ML models, in terms of enabling model publishers to sign their models and prove properties about the datasets they use.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Jan Kulveit, Raymond Douglas, Nora Ammann, Deger Turan, David Krueger, David Duvenaud

This paper examines the systemic risks posed by incremental advancements in artificial intelligence, developing the concept of `gradual disempowerment', in contrast to the abrupt takeover scenarios commonly discussed in AI safety. We analyze how even incremental improvements in AI capabilities can undermine human influence over large-scale systems that society depends on, including the economy, culture, and nation-states. As AI increasingly replaces human labor and cognition in these domains, it can weaken both explicit human control mechanisms (like voting and consumer choice) and the implicit alignments with human preferences that often arise from societal systems' reliance on human participation to function. Furthermore, AI systems may amplify existing misalignments with human preferences by optimizing these systems more powerfully. These distortions across domains may be mutually reinforcing: economic power shapes cultural narratives and political decisions, while cultural shifts alter economic and political behavior. We argue that this dynamic could lead to an effectively irreversible loss of human influence over crucial societal systems, precipitating an existential catastrophe through the permanent disempowerment of humanity. This analysis suggests the need for both technical research and governance approaches that specifically address the risk of incremental erosion of human influence across interconnected societal systems.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Sayash Kapoor, Noam Kolt, Seth Lazar

Language model agents are poised to mediate how people navigate and act online. If the companies that already dominate internet search, communication, and commerce—or the firms trying to unseat them—control these agents, the resulting *platform agents* will likely deepen surveillance, tighten lock-in, and further entrench incumbents. To resist that trajectory, this position paper argues that we should promote *agent advocates*: user-controlled agents that safeguard individual autonomy and choice. Doing so demands three coordinated moves: broad public access to both compute and capable AI models that are not platform-owned, open interoperability and safety standards, and market regulation that prevents platforms from foreclosing competition.

Position · Risk_safety_policy

Yanzhou Pan, Jiayi Chen, Jiamin Chen, Zhaozhuo Xu, Denghui Zhang

The infringement risks of LLMs have raised significant copyright concerns across different stages of the model lifecycle. While current methods often address these issues separately, this position paper argues that the LLM copyright challenges are inherently connected, and independent optimization of these solutions leads to theoretical bottlenecks. Building on this insight, we further argue that managing LLM copyright risks requires a systemic approach rather than fragmented solutions. In this paper, we analyze the limitations of existing methods in detail and introduce an iterative online-offline joint optimization framework to effectively manage complex LLM copyright risks. We demonstrate that this framework offers a scalable and practical solution to mitigate LLM infringement risks, and also outline new research directions that emerge from this perspective.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Ruth Elisabeth Appel

There is strong agreement that generative AI should be regulated, but strong disagreement on how to approach regulation. While some argue that AI regulation should mostly rely on extensions of existing laws, others argue that entirely new laws and regulations are needed to ensure that generative AI benefits society. In this position paper, we argue that the debates on generative AI regulation can be informed by evidence on social media regulation. For example, AI companies have faced allegations of political bias which resemble the allegations social media companies have faced. First, we compare and contrast the affordances of generative AI and social media to highlight their similarities and differences. Then, we discuss four specific policy recommendations based on the evolution of social media and their regulation: (1) counter bias and perceptions thereof (e.g., via transparency, oversight boards, researcher access, democratic input), (2) address specific regulatory concerns (e.g., youth wellbeing, election integrity) and invest in trust and safety, (3) promote computational social science research, and (4) take on a more global perspective. Applying lessons learnt from social media regulation to generative AI regulation can save effort and time, and prevent avoidable mistakes.

Social Aspects · Alignment

Min-Hsuan Yeh, Jeffrey Wang, Xuefeng Du, Seongheon Park, Leitian Tao, Shawn Im, Sharon Li

As AI systems become increasingly capable and influential, ensuring their alignment with human values, preferences, and goals has become a critical research focus. Current alignment methods primarily focus on designing algorithms and loss functions but often underestimate the crucial role of data. This paper advocates for a shift towards data-centric AI alignment, emphasizing the need to enhance the quality and representativeness of data used in aligning AI systems. In this position paper, we highlight key challenges associated with both human-based and AI-based feedback within the data-centric alignment framework. Through qualitative analysis, we identify multiple sources of unreliability in human feedback, as well as problems related to temporal drift, context dependence, and AI-based feedback failing to capture human values due to inherent model limitations. We propose future research directions, including improved feedback collection practices, robust data-cleaning methodologies, and rigorous feedback verification processes. We call for future research into these critical directions to ensure, addressing gaps that persist in understanding and improvingdata-centric alignment practices.

Position · Understanding

Sebastian Bordt, Eric Raidl, Ulrike Luxburg

In the rapidly growing literature on explanation algorithms, it often remains unclear what precisely these algorithms are for and how they should be used. In this position paper, we argue for a novel and pragmatic perspective: Explainable machine learning needs to recognize its parallels with applied statistics. Concretely, explanations are statistics of high-dimensional functions, and we should think about them analogously to traditional statistical quantities. Among others, this implies that we must think carefully about the matter of interpretation, or how the explanations relate to intuitive questions that humans have about the world. The fact that this is scarcely being discussed in research papers is one of the main drawbacks of the current literature. Moving forward, the analogy between explainable machine learning and applied statistics provides a fruitful way for how research practices can be improved.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Yan Shvartzshnaider, Vasisht Duddu

Machine learning community is discovering Contextual Integrity (CI) as a useful framework to assess the privacy implications of large language models (LLMs). This is an encouraging development.The CI theory emphasizes sharing information in accordance with *privacy norms* and can bridge the social, legal, political, and technical aspects essential for evaluating privacy in LLMs. However, this is also a good point to reflect on use of CI for LLMs. *This position paper argues that existing literature inadequately applies CI for LLMs without embracing the theory’s fundamental tenets.*Inadequate applications of CI could lead to incorrect conclusions and flawed privacy-preserving designs. We clarify the four fundamental tenets of CI theory, systematize prior work on whether they deviate from these tenets, and highlight overlooked issues in experimental hygiene for LLMs (e.g., prompt sensitivity, positional bias).

Position · Methodology

Sam Bowyer, Laurence Aitchison, Desi Ivanova

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios.

Position · Methodology

Bruno Mlodozeniec, David Krueger, Richard E Turner

Causal inference is a key research area in machine learning, yet confusion reigns over the tools needed to tackle it. There are prevalent claims in the machine learning literature that you need a bespoke causal framework or notation to answer causal questions. In this paper, we make it clear that you can answer any causal inference question within the realm of probabilistic modelling and inference, without causal-specific tools or notation. Through concrete examples, we demonstrate how causal questions can be tackled by writing down the probability of everything. We argue for the advantages of the generality of the probabilistic modelling lens, when compared to bespoke causal frameworks. Lastly, we reinterpret causal tools as emerging from standard probabilistic modelling and inference, elucidating their necessity and utility.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Sunayana Rane

AI systems are now ubiquitous in real-world decision-making. However, their use is often invisible and almost always difficult to understand for the ordinary people who now come into contact with AI regularly. As these AI-driven decision-making systems increasingly replace human counterparts, our ability to understand the reasons behind a decision, and to contest that decision fairly, is quickly being eroded. In the United States legal system due process includes the right to understand the reasons for certain major decisions and the right to openly contest those decisions. Everyone is entitled to due process under the law, and human decision-makers have been required to adhere to due process when making many important decisions that are now slowly being relegated to AI systems. Using two recent court decisions as a foundation, this paper takes the position that AI in its current form cannot guarantee due process, and therefore cannot and (should not) be used to make decisions that should be subject to due process. The supporting legal analysis investigates how the current lack of technical answers about the interpretability and causality of AI decisions, coupled with extreme trade secret protections severely limiting any exercise of the small amount of technical knowledge we do have, serve as a fatal anti-due-process combination. Throughout the analysis, this paper explains why technical researchers' involvement is vital to informing the legal process and restoring due process protections.

Position · Methodology

Hanqi Yan, Linhai Zhang, Jiazheng Li, Zhenyi Shen, Yulan He

Large language models (LLMs) excel in many reasoning tasks but continue to face significant challenges, such as lack of robustness in reasoning, struggling with cross-task generalization, and inefficiencies in scaling up reasoning capabilities. Current training paradigms, including next-token prediction and reinforcement learning from human feedback, often fall short in adaptability to diverse reasoning tasks. Existing approaches, such as prompt optimization and iterative output refinement, offer performance improvement, but can be inefficient and lack effective generalization. To overcome these limitations, this position paper argues for a transformative shift in how LLMs approach reasoning. Drawing inspiration from cognitive science, particularly meta-reasoning theories such as Dual-Process Theory and Metacognitive Reasoning, we propose a Bayesian meta-reasoning framework for LLMs. Our approach integrates self-awareness, monitoring, evaluation, regulation, and meta-reflection, to enhance LLMs' ability to refine reasoning strategies and generalize across tasks. We revisit existing LLM reasoning methods, identify key challenges, and suggest directions for future research.

Position · Methodology

Audrey Poinsot, Panayiotis Panayiotou, Alessandro Leite, Nicolas CHESNEAU, Özgür Şimşek, Marc Schoenauer

Causal machine learning has the potential to revolutionize decision-making by combining the predictive power of machine learning algorithms with the theory of causal inference. However, these methods remain underutilized by the broader machine learning community, in part because current empirical evaluations do not permit assessment of their reliability and robustness, undermining their practical utility. Specifically, one of the principal criticisms made by the community is the extensive use of synthetic experiments. We argue, on the contrary, that **synthetic experiments are essential and necessary to precisely assess and understand the capabilities of causal machine learning methods**. To substantiate our position, we critically review the current evaluation practices, spotlight their shortcomings, and propose a set of principles for conducting rigorous empirical analyses with synthetic data. Adopting the proposed principles will enable comprehensive evaluations that build trust in causal machine learning methods, driving their broader adoption and impactful real-world use.

Position · Methodology

Andreas Haupt, Erik Brynjolfsson

Benchmarks and evaluations are central to machine learning methodology and direct research in the field. Current evaluations commonly test systems in the absence of humans. This position paper argues that the machine learning community should increasingly use _centaur evaluations_, in which humans and AI jointly solve tasks. Centaur Evaluations refocus machine learning development toward human augmentation instead of human replacement, they allow for direct evaluation of human-centered desiderata, such as interpretability and helpfulness, and they can be more challenging and realistic than existing evaluations. By shifting the focus from _automation_ toward _collaboration_ between humans and AI, centaur evaluations can drive progress toward more effective and human-augmenting machine learning systems.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Lionel Wong, Ayman Ali, Raymond M Xiong, Shannon Shen, Yoon Kim, Monica Agrawal

Patients have long sought health information online, and increasingly, they are turning to generative AI to answer their health-related queries. Given the high stakes of the medical domain, techniques like retrieval-augmented generation and citation grounding have been widely promoted as methods to reduce hallucinations and improve the accuracy of AI-generated responses and have been widely adopted into search engines. However, we argue that even when these methods produce literally accurate content drawn from source documents sans hallucinations, they can still be highly misleading. Patients may derive significantly different interpretations from AI-generated outputs than they would from reading the original source material, let alone consulting a knowledgeable clinician. Through a large-scale query analysis on topics including disputed diagnoses and procedure safety, we support our argument with quantitative and qualitative evidence of the suboptimal answers resulting from current systems. In particular, we highlight how these models tend to decontextualize facts, omit critical relevant sources, and reinforce patient misconceptions or biases. We propose a series of recommendations---such as the incorporation of communication pragmatics and enhanced comprehension of source documents---that could help mitigate these issues and extend beyond the medical domain.

Position · Social_ethical_env_impact

Nikhil Kandpal, Colin Raffel

Training a state-of-the-art Large Language Model (LLM) is an increasingly expensive endeavor due to growing computational, hardware, energy, and engineering demands. Yet, an often-overlooked (and seldom paid) expense is the human labor behind these models' training data. Every LLM is built on an unfathomable amount of human effort: trillions of carefully written words sourced from books, academic papers, codebases, social media, and more. This position paper aims to assign a monetary value to this labor and argues that the most expensive part of producing an LLM \emph{should} be the compensation provided to training data producers for their work. To support this position, we study 64 LLMs released between 2016 and 2024, estimating what it would cost to pay people to produce their training datasets from scratch. Even under highly conservative estimates of wage rates, the costs of these models' training datasets are $10$-$1000$ times larger than the costs to train the models themselves, representing a significant financial liability for LLM providers. In the face of the massive gap between the value of training data and the lack of compensation for its creation, we highlight and discuss research directions that could enable fairer practices in the future.

Position · Risk_safety_policy

Rashid Mushkani, Hugo Berard, Allison Cohen, Shin Koseki

This position paper proposes a “Right to AI,” which asserts that individuals and communities should meaningfully participate in the development and governance of the AI systems that shape their lives. Motivated by the increasing deployment of AI in critical domains and inspired by Henri Lefebvre's concept of the “Right to the City,” we reconceptualize AI as a societal infrastructure, rather than merely a product of expert design. In this paper, we critically evaluate how generative agents, large-scale data extraction, and diverse cultural values bring new complexities to AI oversight. The paper proposes that grassroots participatory methodologies can mitigate biased outcomes and enhance social responsiveness. It asserts that data is socially produced and should be managed and owned collectively. Drawing on Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation and analyzing nine case studies, the paper develops a four-tier model for the Right to AI that situates the current paradigm and envisions an aspirational future. It proposes recommendations for inclusive data ownership, transparent design processes, and stakeholder-driven oversight. We also discuss market-led and state-centric alternatives and argue that participatory approaches offer a better balance between technical efficiency and democratic legitimacy.