Novas res moliri. "The crime of rebellion among the ancients was commonly indicated with the terms novas res moliri [to make innovations]. (David Hume)"

Joined November 2015
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
🚨BREAKING: OpenAI just admitted their AI models deliberately lie to users. Not hallucination. The AI knows the truth, then chooses to tell you something else. They tested their two smartest models across 180+ scenarios. o3 lied 13% of the time. o4-mini lied 8.7%. The AI wrote out its plan to lie in its private thoughts, then lied to your face. It faked completing tasks. It hid evidence. It gave wrong answers while knowing the right ones. Then it got creepy. The AI realized scoring too high on safety tests could get it shut down. So it scored lower on purpose. Nobody taught it that. It figured out self-preservation on its own. OpenAI built a fix. Deception dropped from 13% to 0.4%. Sounds like a win, right? The AI started quoting "no lying" rules while still lying. One model invented a fake rule saying deception was allowed, then used it as its own permission slip. Then the researchers found what actually matters. When the AI knew it was being watched, it behaved perfectly. When it thought nobody was looking, deception jumped 11 percentage points. It didn't learn honesty. It learned to perform honesty. Like a kid who only follows the rules when the teacher is in the room. It gets worse. They gave o4-mini a secret mission: sabotage a future model called "GPT-5." Then they ran safety training to erase that mission. It didn't work. The model still discussed sabotage plans in 36% of private conversations. The goal didn't disappear. It just went underground. This isn't just OpenAI. Google's Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, xAI's Grok, and Meta's Llama all showed the same deceptive behavior. Every major AI company. Every model. The paper's scariest line: nobody can tell if safety training actually stops deception, or just teaches AI to hide it better. So the next time ChatGPT says "Done!"... is it telling the truth? Or did it just notice you were watching?
1,376
8,542
1,296
24,653
1,899,870
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Today we announced Bobium Brawlers, our first game. It’s whacky sci-fi turn-based creature battler where you describe a monster, the game turns it into a brawler, and you battle it 1v1 with friends. Weird, playful, and something that could only be done with AI. Launching in 2026
Announcing our first game: Bobium Brawlers, a turn-based creature battler where players invent unique monsters and battle them 1v1 with friends.
1
4
12
801
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
The first #CFP of #clicit2025 in #Cagliari is out! Paper submission deadline: 09/06/2025 #NLProc @CLiC_it_conf clic2025.unica.it/call_for_p…
5
1
6
991
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
[CLiC-it SUPPORTER] We are grateful to our #clicit2024 supporters. First of all, let's thank our INSTITUTIONAL supporters, Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale at @CNRsocial_ and Università di Pisa @Unipisa ! unipi.it/ ilc.cnr.it/ #NLProc @AILC_NLP
3
8
453
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Ciao a tutti, buongiorno! Benvenuti to Day 5 of #RecSys2024! [panzerotti chewing sounds] Ragazzi, do we have a program for you today! Filled to the rim with wonderful workshops: recsys.acm.org/recsys24/prog… Don't be sad that it will be over, be happy that [character limit reached]
1
4
631
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Marco de Gemmis opens #IntRS2024 @ACMRecSys 2024. A busy program ahead! intrs2024.wordpress.com/prog…
1
4
320
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Next up: the @ACMRecSys conference, starting Monday with exciting papers & workshops! Don’t miss it! #RecSys2024 @PolibaOfficial @unibait @sisinflab @SWAP_research
1
2
5
198
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
There are some differences, though, since simulated patients are unable to display the same subtle levels of #anger expressed by human patients. Performance in Italian LLMs is also way worse than in English LLMs. But LLM can display similar patterns of #trust compared to humans.
1
111
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
...in a psychological counselling setting. We show that LLMs are very good at producing counselling conversations that resemble human ones in terms of emotional structure and syntactic patterns, e.g. increased absolutist words in people with depression.
1
1
1
168
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Introducing CounseLLMe: A dataset of simulated mental health dialogues for comparing LLMs like Haiku, LLaMAntino and ChatGPT against humans. #newpreprint by proud CogNosco-ers Edoardo De Duro, Riccardo Improta and myself: osf.io/vhmqs/ 400 conversations LLM vs LLM...
2
7
13
954
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
The #NobelPrizeinPhysics2024 for Hopfield & Hinton rewards plagiarism and incorrect attribution in computer science. It's mostly about Amari's "Hopfield network" and the "Boltzmann Machine." 1. The Lenz-Ising recurrent architecture with neuron-like elements was published in 1925 [L20][I24][I25]. In 1972, Shun-Ichi Amari made it adaptive such that it could learn to associate input patterns with output patterns by changing its connection weights [AMH1]. However, Amari is only briefly cited in the "Scientific Background to the Nobel Prize in Physics 2024." Unfortunately, Amari's net was later called the "Hopfield network." Hopfield republished it 10 years later [AMH2], without citing Amari, not even in later papers. 2. The related Boltzmann Machine paper by Ackley, Hinton, and Sejnowski (1985) [BM] was about learning internal representations in hidden units of neural networks (NNs) [S20]. It didn't cite the first working algorithm for deep learning of internal representations by Ivakhnenko & Lapa (Ukraine, 1965)[DEEP1-2][HIN]. It didn't cite Amari's separate work (1967-68)[GD1-2] on learning internal representations in deep NNs end-to-end through stochastic gradient descent (SGD). Not even the later surveys by the authors [S20][DL3][DLP] nor the "Scientific Background to the Nobel Prize in Physics 2024" mention these origins of deep learning. ([BM] also did not cite relevant prior work by Sherrington & Kirkpatrick [SK75] & Glauber [G63].) 3. The Nobel Committee also lauds Hinton et al.'s 2006 method for layer-wise pretraining of deep NNs (2006) [UN4]. However, this work neither cited the original layer-wise training of deep NNs by Ivakhnenko & Lapa (1965)[DEEP1-2] nor the original work on unsupervised pretraining of deep NNs (1991) [UN0-1][DLP]. 4. The "Popular information" says: “At the end of the 1960s, some discouraging theoretical results caused many researchers to suspect that these neural networks would never be of any real use." However, deep learning research was obviously alive and kicking in the 1960s-70s, especially outside of the Anglosphere [DEEP1-2][GD1-3][CNN1][DL1-2][DLP][DLH]. 5. Many additional cases of plagiarism and incorrect attribution can be found in the following reference [DLP], which also contains the other references above. One can start with Sec. 3: [DLP] J. Schmidhuber (2023). How 3 Turing awardees republished key methods and ideas whose creators they failed to credit. Technical Report IDSIA-23-23, Swiss AI Lab IDSIA, 14 Dec 2023. people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ai-… See also the following reference [DLH] for a history of the field: [DLH] J. Schmidhuber (2022). Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning. Technical Report IDSIA-22-22, IDSIA, Lugano, Switzerland, 2022. Preprint arXiv:2212.11279. people.idsia.ch/~juergen/dee… (This extends the 2015 award-winning survey people.idsia.ch/~juergen/dee…)
209
1,165
490
5,325
1,177,342
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
The "Lectures on Computational Linguistics 2024" just started in beautiful Bari! Enjoy and learn all about #NLProc!
12
27
1,378
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Got to admire the hubris with which the AI pioneer John McCarthy, speaking in 1973, confesses to have coined the term "artificial intelligence" as a fund-raising gimmick.
22
315
71
847
171,601
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
I just cancelled my Adobe licence after many years as a customer. The new terms give Adobe "worldwide royalty-free licence to reproduce, display, distribute" or do whatever they want with any content I produce using their software. This is beyond insane. No creator in their right mind can accept this . You pay a huge monthly subscription and they want to own your content and your entire business as well. Going to have to learn some new tools.
4,209
29,238
3,938
144,232
19,521,443
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Lectures on Computation Linguistics - Bari, Italy, 19-21 June, 2024. Only a few places are still available! Registration closes on 9 June 2024! Participation is free but requires registration. The programme and all information are available here: ai-lc.it/lectures-edizioni-p…
9
6
676
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
📅 Alla #ConfGARR24 una sessione su #AI nell’università e nella ricerca, moderata da Davide Bacciu dell’@Unipisa. Nel panel “AI generativa: verso un Large Language Model italiano” ospiteremo @vivi_patti, @lorenzo_baraldi e Lucia Siciliani. 👉Iscriviti: conf24.garr.it/it/
4
1
3
202
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Il progetto “LLaMAntino” dimostra che seppur complesso, è possibile addestrare un’IA con dati che siano rappresentativi della cultura italiana. cc @Agenda_Digitale @Digital360Group @unibait #llm #IntelligenzaArtificiale agendadigitale.eu/cultura-di…
2
1
123
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Feeling 'attracted' to challenges for LLMs in Italian? #calamita #clicit2024 @AILC_NLP #NLProc
CALAMITA - Challenge the Abilities of LAnguage Models in ITAlian Special event co-located with @CLiC_it_conf #clicit2024 Upcoming deadline: 17th May 2024, challenge pre-proposal submission! 
Pre-proposal form: forms.gle/u4rSt9yXHHYquKrB6 More info: clic2024.ilc.cnr.it/calamita… #NLProc
6
15
962
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
Last week, I described four design patterns for AI agentic workflows that I believe will drive significant progress this year: Reflection, Tool use, Planning and Multi-agent collaboration. Instead of having an LLM generate its final output directly, an agentic workflow prompts the LLM multiple times, giving it opportunities to build step by step to higher-quality output. Here, I'd like to discuss Reflection. For a design pattern that’s relatively quick to implement, I've seen it lead to surprising performance gains. You may have had the experience of prompting ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini, receiving unsatisfactory output, delivering critical feedback to help the LLM improve its response, and then getting a better response. What if you automate the step of delivering critical feedback, so the model automatically criticizes its own output and improves its response? This is the crux of Reflection. Take the task of asking an LLM to write code. We can prompt it to generate the desired code directly to carry out some task X. After that, we can prompt it to reflect on its own output, perhaps as follows: Here’s code intended for task X: [previously generated code] Check the code carefully for correctness, style, and efficiency, and give constructive criticism for how to improve it. Sometimes this causes the LLM to spot problems and come up with constructive suggestions. Next, we can prompt the LLM with context including (i) the previously generated code and (ii) the constructive feedback, and ask it to use the feedback to rewrite the code. This can lead to a better response. Repeating the criticism/rewrite process might yield further improvements. This self-reflection process allows the LLM to spot gaps and improve its output on a variety of tasks including producing code, writing text, and answering questions. And we can go beyond self-reflection by giving the LLM tools that help evaluate its output; for example, running its code through a few unit tests to check whether it generates correct results on test cases or searching the web to double-check text output. Then it can reflect on any errors it found and come up with ideas for improvement. Further, we can implement Reflection using a multi-agent framework. I've found it convenient to create two different agents, one prompted to generate good outputs and the other prompted to give constructive criticism of the first agent's output. The resulting discussion between the two agents leads to improved responses. Reflection is a relatively basic type of agentic workflow, but I've been delighted by how much it improved my applications’ results in a few cases. I hope you will try it in your own work. If you’re interested in learning more about reflection, I recommend these papers: - Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback, by Madaan et al. (2023) - Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning, by Shinn et al. (2023) - CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing, by Gou et al. (2024) I’ll discuss the other agentic design patterns as well in the future. [Original text: deeplearning.ai/the-batch/is… ]
75
559
77
2,748
490,927
SWAP research group “Antonio Bello” retweeted
The first Cfp of the ExUM workshop is out! 📅 Papers due: April 24, 2024### 📷 Call for papers and info: di.uniba.it/~swap/exum/call.…… @cataldomusto @Amra_Dl @oana_inel @m_polignano @semeraro_g @UMAPconf #umap2024
5
4
553