搜索结果：Accusing

As large language models (LLMs) are trained on increasingly opaque corpora, membership inference attacks (MIAs) have been proposed to audit whether copyrighted texts were used during training, despite growing concerns about their reliability under realistic conditions. We ask whether MIAs can serve as admissible evidence in adversarial copyright disputes where an accused model developer may obfuscate training data while preserving semantic content, and formalize this setting through a judge-prosecutor-accused communication protocol. To test robustness under this protocol, we introduce SAGE (Structure-Aware SAE-Guided Extraction), a paraphrasing framework guided by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) that rewrites training data to alter lexical structure while preserving semantic content and downstream utility. Our experiments show that state-of-the-art MIAs degrade when models are fine-tuned on SAGE-generated paraphrases, indicating that their signals are not robust to semantics-preserving transformations. While some leakage remains in certain fine-tuning regimes, these results suggest that MIAs are brittle in adversarial settings and insufficient, on their own, as a standalone mechanism fo

Social deduction games have become a popular testbed for probing reasoning, deception, coordination, and belief modeling in Large Language Model (LLM) agents. However, most environments are scored only by game outcomes such as win rates and largely remain to text-only interaction, making it difficult to tell whether an agent's language is actually grounded in what it perceived and did, or to identify the failure modes underlying its behavior. To address this gap, we introduce QUACK, an open-source environment and evaluation framework for auditing the grounding of agent language in multimodal social reasoning. QUACK evaluates agents at three levels: game outcomes, behavioral trajectories, and utterance-level consistency. Its core Statement Verification Pipeline reconstructs each agent's ground-truth trajectory from engine logs and checks every discussion claim against it, automatically flagging spatial hallucination, unsupported accusation, deception collapse, and language-action inconsistency. Evaluating three frontier VLMs in both homogeneous and cross-model adversarial settings, we find that even the strongest agent hallucinates 15.1% of its verifiable spatial claims and makes ov

The use of profiling evidence in criminal trials is a longstanding controversy in legal epistemology and evidence law theory. Many scholars, even when they oppose its use at trial, still assume that profiling evidence can be probative of guilt. We reject that assumption. Profiling evidence may support a generic hypothesis, but is not evidence that the defendant is guilty of the specific crime of which they are accused. We contrast profiling evidence with case-specific evidence, which speaks more directly to the facts of the case. Our critique departs from others by grounding the argument in a probabilistic analysis of evidentiary value. We also explore the implications of our account for debates about stereotyping.

Many AI detection models have been developed to counter the presence of articles created by artificial intelligence (AI). However, if a human-authored article is slightly polished by AI, a shift will occur in the borderline decision of these AI detection models, leading them to consider it as AI-generated article. This misclassification may result in falsely accusing authors of AI plagiarism and harm the credibility of AI detectors. In English, some efforts were made to meet this challenge, but not in Arabic. In this paper, we generated two datasets. The first dataset contains 800 Arabic articles, half AI-generated and half human-authored. We used it to evaluate 14 Large Language models (LLMs) and commercial AI detectors to assess their ability in distinguishing between human-authored and AI-generated articles. The best 8 models were chosen to act as detectors for our primary concern, which is whether they would consider slightly polished human-authored text as AI-generated. The second dataset, Ar-APT, contains 400 Arabic human-authored articles polished by 10 LLMs using 4 polishing settings, totaling 16400 samples. We use it to evaluate the 8 nominated models and determine whether

Automated verbal deception detection using methods from Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been shown to outperform humans in disentangling lies from truths. Research suggests that transparency and interpretability of computational methods tend to increase human acceptance of using AI to support decisions. However, the extent to which humans accept AI judgments for deception detection remains unclear. We experimentally examined how an AI model's accuracy (i.e., its overall performance in deception detection) and confidence (i.e., the model's uncertainty in single-statements predictions) influence human adoption of the model's judgments. Participants (n=373) were presented with veracity judgments of an AI model with high or low overall accuracy and various degrees of prediction confidence. The results showed that humans followed predictions from a highly accurate model more than from a less accurate one. Interestingly, the more confident the model, the more people deviated from it, especially if the model predicted deception. We also found that human interaction with algorithmic predictions either worsened the machine's performance or was ineffective. While this human aversion to acce

Effective patient communication is pivotal in healthcare, yet traditional medical training often lacks exposure to diverse, challenging interpersonal dynamics. To bridge this gap, this study proposes the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate authentic patient communication styles, specifically the "accuser" and "rationalizer" personas derived from the Satir model, while also ensuring multilingual applicability to accommodate diverse cultural contexts and enhance accessibility for medical professionals. Leveraging advanced prompt engineering, including behavioral prompts, author's notes, and stubbornness mechanisms, we developed virtual patients (VPs) that embody nuanced emotional and conversational traits. Medical professionals evaluated these VPs, rating their authenticity (accuser: $3.8 \pm 1.0$; rationalizer: $3.7 \pm 0.8$ on a 5-point Likert scale (from one to five)) and correctly identifying their styles. Emotion analysis revealed distinct profiles: the accuser exhibited pain, anger, and distress, while the rationalizer displayed contemplation and calmness, aligning with predefined, detailed patient description including medical history. Sentiment scores (on a scale

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gateke

Communicating in natural language is a powerful tool in multi-agent settings, as it enables independent agents to share information in partially observable settings and allows zero-shot coordination with humans. However, most prior works are limited as they either rely on training with large amounts of human demonstrations or lack the ability to generate natural and useful communication strategies. In this work, we train language models to have productive discussions about their environment in natural language without any human demonstrations. We decompose the communication problem into listening and speaking. Our key idea is to leverage the agent's goal to predict useful information about the world as a dense reward signal that guides communication. Specifically, we improve a model's listening skills by training them to predict information about the environment based on discussions, and we simultaneously improve a model's speaking skills with multi-agent reinforcement learning by rewarding messages based on their influence on other agents. To investigate the role and necessity of communication in complex social settings, we study an embodied social deduction game based on Among Us

Why do Social Media Corporations (SMCs) engage in state-linked information operations? Social media can significantly influence the global political landscape, allowing governments and other political entities to engage in concerted information operations, shaping or manipulating domestic and foreign political agendas. In response to state-linked political manipulation tactics on social media, Twitter and Meta carried out take-down operations against propaganda networks, accusing them of interfering foreign elections, organizing disinformation campaigns, manipulating political debates and many other issues. This research investigates the two SMCs' policy orientation to explain which factors can affect these two companies' reaction against state-linked information operations. We find that good governance indicators such as democracy are significant elements of SMCs' country-focus. This article also examines whether Meta and Twitter's attention to political regime characteristics is influenced by international political alignments. This research illuminates recent trends in SMCs' take-down operations and illuminating interplay between geopolitics and domestic regime characteristics.

The climate crisis is a salient issue in online discussions, and hypocrisy accusations are a central rhetorical element in these debates. However, for large-scale text analysis, hypocrisy accusation detection is an understudied tool, most often defined as a smaller subtask of fallacious argument detection. In this paper, we define hypocrisy accusation detection as an independent task in NLP, and identify different relevant subtypes of hypocrisy accusations. Our Climate Hypocrisy Accusation Corpus (CHAC) consists of 420 Reddit climate debate comments, expert-annotated into two different types of hypocrisy accusations: personal versus political hypocrisy. We evaluate few-shot in-context learning with 6 shots and 3 instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) for detecting hypocrisy accusations in this dataset. Results indicate that the GPT-4o and Llama-3 models in particular show promise in detecting hypocrisy accusations (F1 reaching 0.68, while previous work shows F1 of 0.44). However, context matters for a complex semantic concept such as hypocrisy accusations, and we find models struggle especially at identifying political hypocrisy accusations compared to personal moral hypocr

Fake news is today a major threat to free and democratic making of public opinion. To curb their spread, all efforts by institutions and policy makers rely mainly on imposing restriction, prohibition and fact checking sites, which end up to an effective limitation of freedom of speech. This policy of prohibition, supported by a wide consensus, has been recently broken by the controversial policy applied by Elon Musk to regulate the social media X, with a backlash accusing him of promoting hate speech. Here, notwithstanding these two policies, I explore another avenue denoted ``No ban, No spread - with Sequestration", which amounts at the same time preserving full freedom of speech and neutralization of fake news impact. To investigate the feasibility of my proposal, I tackle the issue within the Galam model of opinion dynamics. In addition to the basic ingredients of the model, I explore for the first time the effect on the dynamics of opinion of a simultaneous activation of prejudice tie breaking and contrarian behavior. The results show that indeed most pieces of fake news do not propagate beyond small groups of people and thus pose no global threat. However, I have unveiled some

Social media platforms have been accused of causing a range of harms, resulting in dozens of lawsuits across jurisdictions. These lawsuits are situated within the context of a long history of American product safety litigation, suggesting opportunities for remediation outside of financial compensation. Anticipating that at least some of these cases may be successful and/or lead to settlements, this article outlines an implementable mechanism for an abatement and/or settlement plan capable of mitigating abuse. The paper describes the requirements of such a mechanism, implications for privacy and oversight, and tradeoffs that such a procedure would entail. The mechanism is framed to operate at the intersection of legal procedure, standards for transparent public health assessment, and the practical requirements of modern technology products.

This paper describes a parsing/generation system for finite verbal forms in Akkadian, with the possible addition of suffixes, implemented in Prolog. The work described provides the framework and engine to interpret the D, N, and G stems along with accusative, dative and ventive endings.

Generative AI, in particular text-based "foundation models" (large models trained on a huge variety of information including the internet), can generate speech that could be problematic under a wide range of liability regimes. Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify and mitigate such problematic speech: from "hallucinations" falsely accusing people of serious misconduct to recipes for constructing an atomic bomb. A key question is whether these red-teamed behaviors actually present any liability risk for model creators and deployers under U.S. law, incentivizing investments in safety mechanisms. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors: defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, and wrongful death. We find that any Section 230 immunity analysis or downstream liability analysis is intimately wrapped up in the technical details of algorithm design. And there are many roadblocks to truly finding models (and their associated parties) liable for generated speech. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios and that as courts grapple with the already fine-

Broadly accessible generative AI models like Dall-E have made it possible for anyone to create compelling visual art. In online communities, the introduction of AI-generated content (AIGC) may impact social dynamics, for example causing changes in who is posting content, or shifting the norms or the discussions around the posted content if posts are suspected of being generated by AI. We take steps towards examining the potential impact of AIGC on art-related communities on Reddit. We distinguish between communities that disallow AI content and those without such a direct policy. We look at image-based posts in these communities where the author transparently shares that the image was created by AI, and at comments in these communities that suspect or accuse authors of using generative AI. We find that AI posts (and accusations) have played a surprisingly small part in these communities through the end of 2023, accounting for fewer than 0.5% of the image-based posts. However, even as the absolute number of author-labeled AI posts dwindles over time, accusations of AI use remain more persistent. We show that AI content is more readily used by newcomers and may help increase particip

This study explores real-world human interactions with large language models (LLMs) in diverse, unconstrained settings in contrast to most prior research focusing on ethically trimmed models like ChatGPT for specific tasks. We aim to understand the originator of toxicity. Our findings show that although LLMs are rightfully accused of providing toxic content, it is mostly demanded or at least provoked by humans who actively seek such content. Our manual analysis of hundreds of conversations judged as toxic by APIs commercial vendors, also raises questions with respect to current practices of what user requests are refused to answer. Furthermore, we conjecture based on multiple empirical indicators that humans exhibit a change of their mental model, switching from the mindset of interacting with a machine more towards interacting with a human.

Deep neural network (DNN) models are valuable intellectual property of model owners, constituting a competitive advantage. Therefore, it is crucial to develop techniques to protect against model theft. Model ownership resolution (MOR) is a class of techniques that can deter model theft. A MOR scheme enables an accuser to assert an ownership claim for a suspect model by presenting evidence, such as a watermark or fingerprint, to show that the suspect model was stolen or derived from a source model owned by the accuser. Most of the existing MOR schemes prioritize robustness against malicious suspects, ensuring that the accuser will win if the suspect model is indeed a stolen model. In this paper, we show that common MOR schemes in the literature are vulnerable to a different, equally important but insufficiently explored, robustness concern: a malicious accuser. We show how malicious accusers can successfully make false claims against independent suspect models that were not stolen. Our core idea is that a malicious accuser can deviate (without detection) from the specified MOR process by finding (transferable) adversarial examples that successfully serve as evidence against independ

Robert A. Millikan (1868-1953) was the second American to win the Nobel Prize in physics. At the peak of his influence, no scientist save Einstein was more admired by the American public. Millikan, the head of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) during its first 24 years, oversaw its rapid growth into one of the leading scientific institutions of the world. In response to demands for social justice, Caltech reached a decision to strip Millikan of honors (such as the library named after him), following accusations against him. This article analyzes a specific accusation against Millikan that was published in Nature: that he collaborated to deprive Japanese Americans of their rights during their forced relocation to internment camps during the Second World War. An examination of original historical sources will show that this accusation is false. On the contrary, Millikan actively campaigned during the war to promote the rights of Japanese Americans. The article also treats Caltech's central accusation against Millikan: he lent his name to a morally reprehensible eugenics movement that had been scientifically discredited in his time. In a reversal of Caltech's claims, th

How many times you need to change your method description because you were "accused" of plagiarism from text you already published? I will use this preprint to add all the methods I currently used in running the simulations for my research works. Then, I will cite it as needed.