Daily Papers

This paper aims to help structure the risk landscape associated with large-scale Language Models (LMs). In order to foster advances in responsible innovation, an in-depth understanding of the potential risks posed by these models is needed. A wide range of established and anticipated risks are analysed in detail, drawing on multidisciplinary expertise and literature from computer science, linguistics, and social sciences. We outline six specific risk areas: I. Discrimination, Exclusion and Toxicity, II. Information Hazards, III. Misinformation Harms, V. Malicious Uses, V. Human-Computer Interaction Harms, VI. Automation, Access, and Environmental Harms. The first area concerns the perpetuation of stereotypes, unfair discrimination, exclusionary norms, toxic language, and lower performance by social group for LMs. The second focuses on risks from private data leaks or LMs correctly inferring sensitive information. The third addresses risks arising from poor, false or misleading information including in sensitive domains, and knock-on risks such as the erosion of trust in shared information. The fourth considers risks from actors who try to use LMs to cause harm. The fifth focuses on risks specific to LLMs used to underpin conversational agents that interact with human users, including unsafe use, manipulation or deception. The sixth discusses the risk of environmental harm, job automation, and other challenges that may have a disparate effect on different social groups or communities. In total, we review 21 risks in-depth. We discuss the points of origin of different risks and point to potential mitigation approaches. Lastly, we discuss organisational responsibilities in implementing mitigations, and the role of collaboration and participation. We highlight directions for further research, particularly on expanding the toolkit for assessing and evaluating the outlined risks in LMs.

Misinformation - false or misleading information - is considered a significant societal concern due to its associated "misinformation effects," such as political polarization, erosion of trust in institutions, problematic behavior, and public health challenges. However, the prevailing concept is misaligned with what is studied. While misinformation focuses on instances of information about factual matters, the broad spectrum of effects often manifests at a societal level and is shaped by a wide range of interdependent factors such as identity, values, opinions, epistemologies, and disagreements. Unsurprisingly, misinformation effects can occur without the prevalence of misinformation, and misinformation does not necessarily increase the effects studied. Here, we propose using disagreement - conflicting attitudes and beliefs between individuals and communities - as a way to study misinformation effects because it addresses the identified conceptual limitations of misinformation. Furthermore, unlike misinformation, disagreement does not require researchers to determine whether a given information is false or misleading. Thus, it can be studied and, more importantly, measured without the need to make a normative judgment about a given information, even when the specific topic is entirely removed, as we show in a longitudinal disagreement measurement. We demonstrate that disagreement, as a holistic concept, provides better explanations for the occurrence of misinformation effects, enhances precision in developing appropriate interventions, and offers a promising approach for evaluating them through quantification. Finally, we show how disagreement addresses current misinformation research questions and conclude with recommendations for research practice.

Regulating the importance ratio is critical for the training stability of Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) based frameworks. However, prevailing ratio control methods, such as hard clipping, suffer from non-differentiable boundaries and vanishing gradient regions, failing to maintain gradient fidelity. Furthermore, these methods lack a hazard-aware mechanism to adaptively suppress extreme deviations, leaving the optimization process vulnerable to abrupt policy shifts. To address these challenges, we propose Modulated Hazard-aware Policy Optimization (MHPO), a novel framework designed for robust and stable reinforcement learning. The proposed MHPO introduces a Log-Fidelity Modulator (LFM) to map unbounded importance ratios into a bounded, differentiable domain. This mechanism effectively prevents high-variance outlier tokens from destabilizing the loss landscape while ensuring global gradient stability. Complementarily, a Decoupled Hazard Penalty (DHP) integrates cumulative hazard functions from survival analysis to independently regulate positive and negative policy shifts. By shaping the optimization landscape with hazard-aware penalties, the proposed MHPO achieves fine-grained regulation of asymmetric policy shifts simultaneously mitigating mode collapse from over-expansion and preventing policy erosion from catastrophic contraction within a stabilized trust region. Extensive evaluations on diverse reasoning benchmarks across both text-based and vision-language tasks demonstrate that MHPO consistently outperforms existing methods, achieving superior performance while significantly enhancing training stability.