CERN for AGI: A Theoretical Framework for Autonomous Simulation-Based Artificial Intelligence Testing and Alignment

This paper explores the potential of a multidisciplinary approach to testing and aligning artificial general intelligence (AGI) and LLMs. Due to the rapid development and wide application of LLMs, challenges such as ethical alignment, controllability, and predictability of these models have become important research topics. This study investigates an innovative simulation-based multi-agent system within a virtual reality framework that replicates the real-world environment. The framework is populated by automated 'digital citizens,' simulating complex social structures and interactions to examine and optimize AGI. Application of various theories from the fields of sociology, social psychology, computer science, physics, biology, and economics demonstrates the possibility of a more human-aligned and socially responsible AGI. The purpose of such a digital environment is to provide a dynamic platform where advanced AI agents can interact and make independent decisions, thereby mimicking realistic scenarios. The actors in this digital city, operated by the LLMs, serve as the primary agents, exhibiting high degrees of autonomy. While this approach shows immense potential, there are notable challenges and limitations, most significantly the unpredictable nature of real-world social dynamics. This research endeavors to contribute to the development and refinement of AGI, emphasizing the integration of social, ethical, and theoretical dimensions for future research.

Online Hate: Behavioural Dynamics and Relationship with Misinformation

Online debates are often characterised by extreme polarisation and heated discussions among users. The presence of hate speech online is becoming increasingly problematic, making necessary the development of appropriate countermeasures. In this work, we perform hate speech detection on a corpus of more than one million comments on YouTube videos through a machine learning model fine-tuned on a large set of hand-annotated data. Our analysis shows that there is no evidence of the presence of "serial haters", intended as active users posting exclusively hateful comments. Moreover, coherently with the echo chamber hypothesis, we find that users skewed towards one of the two categories of video channels (questionable, reliable) are more prone to use inappropriate, violent, or hateful language within their opponents community. Interestingly, users loyal to reliable sources use on average a more toxic language than their counterpart. Finally, we find that the overall toxicity of the discussion increases with its length, measured both in terms of number of comments and time. Our results show that, coherently with Godwin's law, online debates tend to degenerate towards increasingly toxic exchanges of views.