人工智能研究中的一个新兴主题是创建模型，以模拟特定人员的决策和行为，包括游戏玩法，文本生成和艺术表达。这些模型以对个人的量身定制的方式以及为互动而不是简单地繁殖固定的预计行为的复制方式而超越了早期的方法。我们将这些称为模拟模型，在本文中，我们开发了一个框架，以表征其日益增长的可用性所带来的道德和社会问题。我们的框架包括用于使用此类模型的许多不同方案，并考虑了对一系列不同参与者的影响，包括正在建模的目标，部署模型的操作员以及与之交互的实体。

我们生活中情绪的重要性和普及性使得情感计算了一个非常重要和充满活力的工作。自动情感识别（AER）和情感分析的系统可以是巨大进展的促进者（例如，改善公共卫生和商业），而且还有巨大伤害的推动者（例如，用于抑制持不同政见者和操纵选民）。因此，情感计算社区必须积极地与其创作的道德后果搞。在本文中，我已经从AI伦理和情感认可文学中综合和组织信息，以提出与AER相关的五十个道德考虑因素。值得注意的是，纸张捏出了隐藏在如何框架的假设，并且在经常对数据，方法和评估的选择中的选择。特别关注在隐私和社会群体上的AER对AER的影响。沿途，关键建议是针对负责任的航空制作的。纸张的目标是促进和鼓励更加思考为什么自动化，如何自动化，以及如何在建立AER系统之前判断成功。此外，该纸张作为情感认可的有用介绍文件（补充调查文章）。

Xenophobia is one of the key drivers of marginalisation, discrimination, and conflict, yet many prominent machine learning (ML) fairness frameworks fail to comprehensively measure or mitigate the resulting xenophobic harms. Here we aim to bridge this conceptual gap and help facilitate safe and ethical design of artificial intelligence (AI) solutions. We ground our analysis of the impact of xenophobia by first identifying distinct types of xenophobic harms, and then applying this framework across a number of prominent AI application domains, reviewing the potential interplay between AI and xenophobia on social media and recommendation systems, healthcare, immigration, employment, as well as biases in large pre-trained models. These help inform our recommendations towards an inclusive, xenophilic design of future AI systems.

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

To address the widespread problem of uncivil behavior, many online discussion platforms employ human moderators to take action against objectionable content, such as removing it or placing sanctions on its authors. This reactive paradigm of taking action against already-posted antisocial content is currently the most common form of moderation, and has accordingly underpinned many recent efforts at introducing automation into the moderation process. Comparatively less work has been done to understand other moderation paradigms -- such as proactively discouraging the emergence of antisocial behavior rather than reacting to it -- and the role algorithmic support can play in these paradigms. In this work, we investigate such a proactive framework for moderation in a case study of a collaborative setting: Wikipedia Talk Pages. We employ a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and design components for a holistic analysis. Through interviews with moderators, we find that despite a lack of technical and social support, moderators already engage in a number of proactive moderation behaviors, such as preemptively intervening in conversations to keep them on track. Further, we explore how automation could assist with this existing proactive moderation workflow by building a prototype tool, presenting it to moderators, and examining how the assistance it provides might fit into their workflow. The resulting feedback uncovers both strengths and drawbacks of the prototype tool and suggests concrete steps towards further developing such assisting technology so it can most effectively support moderators in their existing proactive moderation workflow.

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.

\ EMPH {人工智能}（AI）系统越来越多地参与影响我们生活的决策，确保自动决策是公平的，道德已经成为最优先事项。直观地，我们觉得类似人的决定，人工代理人的判断应该必然地以一些道德原则为基础。然而，如果有关决定所基础的所有有关因素的全部信息，可以真正伦理（人类或人为）和公平（根据任何道德理论）和公平（根据公平的任何概念）的规定在决策时。这提出了两个问题：（1）在设置中，我们依赖使用通过监督学习获得的分类器的AI系统，存在一些感应/泛化，即使在学习期间也可能不存在一些相关属性。 （2）根据游戏揭示任何 - 无论是道德的纯策略都不可避免地易于剥削，建模这些决定。此外，在许多游戏中，只能通过使用混合策略来获得纳什均衡，即实现数学上最佳结果，决定必须随机化。在本文中，我们认为，在监督学习设置中，存在至少以及确定性分类器的随机分类器，因此在许多情况下可能是最佳选择。我们支持我们的理论效果，具有一个实证研究，表明对随机人工决策者的积极社会态度，并讨论了与使用与当前的AI政策和标准化举措相关的随机分类器相关的一些政策和实施问题。

MetaVerse，巨大的虚拟物理网络空间，为艺术家带来了前所未有的机会，将我们的身体环境的每个角落与数字创造力混合。本文对计算艺术进行了全面的调查，其中七个关键主题与成权相关，描述了混合虚拟物理现实中的新颖艺术品。主题首先涵盖了MetaVerse的建筑元素，例如虚拟场景和字符，听觉，文本元素。接下来，已经反映了诸如沉浸式艺术，机器人艺术和其他用户以其他用户的方法提供了沉浸式艺术，机器人艺术和其他用户中心的若干非凡类型的新颖创作。最后，我们提出了几项研究议程：民主化的计算艺术，数字隐私和搬迁艺术家的安全性，为数字艺术品，技术挑战等等的所有权认可。该调查还担任艺术家和搬迁技术人员的介绍材料，以开始在超现实主义网络空间领域创造。

Recommender systems can strongly influence which information we see online, e.g., on social media, and thus impact our beliefs, decisions, and actions. At the same time, these systems can create substantial business value for different stakeholders. Given the growing potential impact of such AI-based systems on individuals, organizations, and society, questions of fairness have gained increased attention in recent years. However, research on fairness in recommender systems is still a developing area. In this survey, we first review the fundamental concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. Afterward, through a review of more than 150 scholarly publications, we present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized, e.g., in terms of general research methodology, fairness measures, and algorithmic approaches. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to specific research gaps. In particular, we find that in many research works in computer science, very abstract problem operationalizations are prevalent, and questions of the underlying normative claims and what represents a fair recommendation in the context of a given application are often not discussed in depth. These observations call for more interdisciplinary research to address fairness in recommendation in a more comprehensive and impactful manner.

事实证明，在学习环境中，社会智能代理（SIA）的部署在不同的应用领域具有多个优势。社会代理创作工具使场景设计师能够创造出对SIAS行为的高度控制的量身定制体验，但是，另一方面，这是有代价的，因为该方案及其创作的复杂性可能变得霸道。在本文中，我们介绍了可解释的社会代理创作工具的概念，目的是分析社会代理的创作工具是否可以理解和解释。为此，我们检查了创作工具Fatima-Toolkit是否可以理解，并且从作者的角度来看，其创作步骤可以解释。我们进行了两项用户研究，以定量评估Fatima-Toolkit的解释性，可理解性和透明度，从场景设计师的角度来看。关键发现之一是，法蒂玛 - 库尔基特（Fatima-Toolkit）的概念模型通常是可以理解的，但是基于情感的概念并不那么容易理解和使用。尽管关于Fatima-Toolkit的解释性有一些积极的方面，但仍需要取得进展，以实现完全可以解释的社会代理商创作工具。我们提供一组关键概念和可能的解决方案，可以指导开发人员构建此类工具。

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

2021年8月，圣达菲研究所举办了一个关于集体智力的研讨会，是智力项目基础的一部分。该项目旨在通过促进智能性质的跨学科研究来推进人工智能领域。该研讨会汇集了计算机科学家，生物学家，哲学家，社会科学家和其他人，以分享他们对多种代理人之间的互动产生的洞察力的见解 - 是否这些代理商是机器，动物或人类。在本报告中，我们总结了每个会谈和随后的讨论。我们还借出了许多关键主题，并确定未来研究的重要前沿。

在人类可能希望从这些系统中学习，与它们合作或作为合作伙伴互动的情况下，可以捕获类似人类行为的AI系统越来越有用。为了开发以人为导向的AI系统，预测人类行为（而不是预测最佳行动）的问题受到了广泛关注。现有的工作集中在总体意义上捕获人类行为，这可能会限制任何特定个人可以从与这些系统互动中获得的收益。我们通过开发国际象棋中人类行为的高度准确的预测模型来扩展这一工作。国际象棋是探索人类互动的一个丰富领域，因为它结合了一套独特的属性：AI系统在多年前实现了超人类的表现，但人类仍然与他们以及对手和准备工具紧密互动，并且有一种关于单个玩家游戏的大量记录数据。从迈亚（Maia）开始，该版本的Alphazero经过了对人类人群的培训，我们证明我们可以通过应用一系列微调方法来显着提高特定玩家的举动的预测准确性。此外，我们的个性化模型可用于执行风格测定法 - 预测谁采取了一组给定的动作 - 表明他们在个人层面上捕获了人类的决策。我们的工作展示了一种使AI系统更好地与个人行为保持一致的方法，这可能会导致人类互动的大量改善。

In this chapter, we review and discuss the transformation of AI technology in HCI/UX work and assess how AI technology will change how we do the work. We first discuss how AI can be used to enhance the result of user research and design evaluation. We then discuss how AI technology can be used to enhance HCI/UX design. Finally, we discuss how AI-enabled capabilities can improve UX when users interact with computing systems, applications, and services.

在数字治疗干预的背景下，例如互联网交付的认知行为治疗（ICBT）用于治疗抑郁和焦虑，广泛的研究表明，人类支持者或教练的参与如何协助接受治疗的人，改善用户参与治疗并导致更有效的健康结果而不是不受支持的干预措施。该研究旨在最大限度地提高这一人类支持的影响和结果，研究了通过AI和机器学习领域（ML）领域的最新进展提供的新机遇如何有助于有效地支持ICBT支持者的工作实践。本文报告了采访研究的详细调查结果，与15个ICBT支持者加深了解其现有的工作实践和信息需求，旨在有意义地向抑郁和焦虑治疗的背景下提供有用，可实现的ML申请。分析贡献（1）一组六个主题，总结了ICBT支持者在为其精神卫生客户提供有效，个性化反馈方面的策略和挑战;并回应这些学习，（2）对于ML方法如何帮助支持和解决挑战和信息需求，为每个主题提供具体机会。它依赖于在支持者LED客户审查实践中引入新的机器生成的数据见解的潜在社会，情感和务实含义的思考。

This study evaluated the ability of ChatGPT, a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) agent, to perform high-level cognitive tasks and produce text that is indistinguishable from human-generated text. This capacity raises concerns about the potential use of ChatGPT as a tool for academic misconduct in online exams. The study found that ChatGPT is capable of exhibiting critical thinking skills and generating highly realistic text with minimal input, making it a potential threat to the integrity of online exams, particularly in tertiary education settings where such exams are becoming more prevalent. Returning to invigilated and oral exams could form part of the solution, while using advanced proctoring techniques and AI-text output detectors may be effective in addressing this issue, they are not likely to be foolproof solutions. Further research is needed to fully understand the implications of large language models like ChatGPT and to devise strategies for combating the risk of cheating using these tools. It is crucial for educators and institutions to be aware of the possibility of ChatGPT being used for cheating and to investigate measures to address it in order to maintain the fairness and validity of online exams for all students.

如果未来的AI系统在新的情况下是可靠的安全性，那么他们将需要纳入指导它们的一般原则，以便强烈地认识到哪些结果和行为将是有害的。这样的原则可能需要得到约束力的监管制度的支持，该法规需要广泛接受的基本原则。它们还应该足够具体用于技术实施。本文从法律中汲取灵感，解释了负面的人权如何履行此类原则的作用，并为国际监管制度以及为未来的AI系统建立技术安全限制的基础。

本章讨论了数据组织自动化过程的棱镜的AI，并举例说明了解释性能够在从当前的AI系统中移动到下一个系统的作用，其中人类的作用被从中抬起数据注释器为使用AI系统工作的AI系统。

Many real-world applications of language models (LMs), such as code autocomplete and writing assistance, involve human-LM interaction, but the main LM benchmarks are non-interactive, where a system produces output without human intervention. To evaluate human-LM interaction, we develop a framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (H-LINE), that expands non-interactive evaluation along three dimensions, capturing (i) the interactive process, not only the final output; (ii) the first-person subjective experience, not just a third-party assessment; and (iii) notions of preference beyond quality. We then design five tasks ranging from goal-oriented to open-ended to capture different forms of interaction. On four state-of-the-art LMs (three variants of OpenAI's GPT-3 and AI21's J1-Jumbo), we find that non-interactive performance does not always result in better human-LM interaction and that first-person and third-party metrics can diverge, suggesting the importance of examining the nuances of human-LM interaction.