What Do People Actually Want From AI? Mapping Preference Plurality

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to align with people's preferences and values. However, this method has known limitations: it aggregates conflicting preferences, often relies on unrepresentative samples, and uses only binary comparisons. Analysing 1,500 open-ended responses from the PRISM dataset across 75 countries, we examine what people actually want from AI systems and reveal concrete failures of current methods. We find that different people want different things: most values are requested by fewer than a quarter of respondents, with truthfulness the sole exception at 49%. Furthermore, the same words hide divergent meanings: when people describe what they mean by "truthfulness", they reveal distinct, potentially incompatible, epistemological bases, as some ask for sourced claims, some for expert opinions, and some even ask for unpopular views. Certain capabilities, namely how human-like a model behaves, and some features, like AI guardrails, are outright controversial, with some desiring them and others rejecting them. We additionally find that people often use contextual distinctions (what AI should do "by default" versus "if requested") that binary comparisons cannot capture. These findings expose fundamental problems in current alignment practices. When 49% request truthfulness but define it differently, this is unlikely to be captured by a single reward model. The persistence of high hallucination rates in well-funded models, despite users' clear demands for accuracy, suggests that current methods fail to identify actual preferences. This paper sheds light on the situated, contested, imperfect signals that are currently being flattened into universal preference models, a practice others have characterised as epistemic violence.

Language Mutations Sustain the Persistences of Conspiracy Theories on Social Media

This study investigates how language mutations affect the persistent diffusion of conspiracy theories on social media. Drawing on a three-year dataset of conspiracy-related posts from X, and applying computational linguistic analysis alongside survival modelling, we find that conspiracy claims with greater semantic mutations have substantially longer lifespans. Mutations in psycholinguistic properties, including pronouns, social reference words, cognitive process terms, risk- and health- related vocabularies, are associated with extended lifespans. Mutations in actor, action and target (AAT) categories are associated with longer lifespans as well. Qualitative analysis identifies two predominant mutation patterns: simplification and assimilation, at both linguistic and AAT structural levels. Taken together, the results advance our understanding of how language mutations contribute to conspiracy persistence online and shed lights on longitudinal content moderation strategies. We argue that content moderation should consider the mutability of conspiracy claims and focus on the core claims that can address their potential variations.

PRISM-X: Experiments on Personalised Fine-Tuning with Human and Simulated Users

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.

The Enforcement and Feasibility of Hate Speech Moderation on Twitter

Online hate speech is associated with substantial social harms, yet it remains unclear how consistently platforms enforce hate speech policies or whether enforcement is feasible at scale. We address these questions through a global audit of hate speech moderation on Twitter (now X). Using a complete 24-hour snapshot of public tweets, we construct representative samples comprising 540,000 tweets annotated for hate speech by trained annotators across eight major languages. Five months after posting, 80% of hateful tweets remain online, including explicitly violent hate speech. Such tweets are no more likely to be removed than non-hateful tweets, with neither severity nor visibility increasing the likelihood of removal. We then examine whether these enforcement gaps reflect technical limits of large-scale moderation systems. While fully automated detection systems cannot reliably identify hate speech without generating large numbers of false positives, they effectively prioritize likely violations for human review. Simulations of a human-AI moderation pipeline indicate that substantially reducing user exposure to hate speech is economically feasible at a cost below existing regulatory penalties. These results suggest that the persistence of online hate cannot be explained by technical constraints alone but also reflects institutional choices in the allocation of moderation resources.

Framing Migration: A Computational Analysis of UK Parliamentary Discourse

We present a large-scale computational analysis of migration-related discourse in UK parliamentary debates spanning over 75 years and compare it with US congressional discourse. Using open-weight LLMs, we annotate each statement with high-level stances toward migrants and track the net tone toward migrants across time and political parties. For the UK, we extend this with a semi-automated framework for extracting fine-grained narrative frames to capture nuances of migration discourse. Our findings show that, while US discourse has grown increasingly polarised, UK parliamentary attitudes remain relatively aligned across parties, with a persistent ideological gap between Labour and the Conservatives, reaching its most negative level in 2025. The analysis of narrative frames in the UK parliamentary statements reveals a shift toward securitised narratives such as border control and illegal immigration, while longer-term integration-oriented frames such as social integration have declined. Moreover, discussions of national law about immigration have been replaced over time by international law and human rights, revealing nuances in discourse trends. Taken together broadly, our findings demonstrate how LLMs can support scalable, fine-grained discourse analysis in political and historical contexts.

AI-Powered Detection of Inappropriate Language in Medical School Curricula

The use of inappropriate language -- such as outdated, exclusionary, or non-patient-centered terms -- medical instructional materials can significantly influence clinical training, patient interactions, and health outcomes. Despite their reputability, many materials developed over past decades contain examples now considered inappropriate by current medical standards. Given the volume of curricular content, manually identifying instances of inappropriate use of language (IUL) and its subcategories for systematic review is prohibitively costly and impractical. To address this challenge, we conduct a first-in-class evaluation of small language models (SLMs) fine-tuned on labeled data and pre-trained LLMs with in-context learning on a dataset containing approximately 500 documents and over 12,000 pages. For SLMs, we consider: (1) a general IUL classifier, (2) subcategory-specific binary classifiers, (3) a multilabel classifier, and (4) a two-stage hierarchical pipeline for general IUL detection followed by multilabel classification. For LLMs, we consider variations of prompts that include subcategory definitions and/or shots. We found that both LLama-3 8B and 70B, even with carefully curated shots, are largely outperformed by SLMs. While the multilabel classifier performs best on annotated data, supplementing training with unflagged excerpts as negative examples boosts the specific classifiers' AUC by up to 25%, making them most effective models for mitigating harmful language in medical curricula.

Why human-AI relationships need socioaffective alignment

Humans strive to design safe AI systems that align with our goals and remain under our control. However, as AI capabilities advance, we face a new challenge: the emergence of deeper, more persistent relationships between humans and AI systems. We explore how increasingly capable AI agents may generate the perception of deeper relationships with users, especially as AI becomes more personalised and agentic. This shift, from transactional interaction to ongoing sustained social engagement with AI, necessitates a new focus on socioaffective alignment-how an AI system behaves within the social and psychological ecosystem co-created with its user, where preferences and perceptions evolve through mutual influence. Addressing these dynamics involves resolving key intrapersonal dilemmas, including balancing immediate versus long-term well-being, protecting autonomy, and managing AI companionship alongside the desire to preserve human social bonds. By framing these challenges through a notion of basic psychological needs, we seek AI systems that support, rather than exploit, our fundamental nature as social and emotional beings.

HateDay: Insights from a Global Hate Speech Dataset Representative of a Day on Twitter

To tackle the global challenge of online hate speech, a large body of research has developed detection models to flag hate speech in the sea of online content. Yet, due to systematic biases in evaluation datasets, detection performance in real-world settings remains unclear, let alone across geographies. To address this issue, we introduce HateDay, the first global hate speech dataset representative of social media settings, randomly sampled from all tweets posted on September 21, 2022 for eight languages and four English-speaking countries. Using HateDay, we show how the prevalence and composition of hate speech varies across languages and countries. We also find that evaluation on academic hate speech datasets overestimates real-world detection performance, which we find is very low, especially for non-European languages. We identify several factors explaining poor performance, including models' inability to distinguish between hate and offensive speech, and the misalignment between academic target focus and real-world target prevalence. We finally argue that such low performance renders hate speech moderation with public detection models unfeasible, even in a human-in-the-loop setting which we find is prohibitively costly. Overall, we emphasize the need to evaluate future detection models from academia and platforms in real-world settings to address this global challenge.

LINGOLY: A Benchmark of Olympiad-Level Linguistic Reasoning Puzzles in Low-Resource and Extinct Languages

In this paper, we present the LingOly benchmark, a novel benchmark for advanced reasoning abilities in large language models. Using challenging Linguistic Olympiad puzzles, we evaluate (i) capabilities for in-context identification and generalisation of linguistic patterns in very low-resource or extinct languages, and (ii) abilities to follow complex task instructions. The LingOly benchmark covers more than 90 mostly low-resource languages, minimising issues of data contamination, and contains 1,133 problems across 6 formats and 5 levels of human difficulty. We assess performance with both direct accuracy and comparison to a no-context baseline to penalise memorisation. Scores from 11 state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate the benchmark to be challenging, and models perform poorly on the higher difficulty problems. On harder problems, even the top model only achieved 38.7% accuracy, 24.7% improvement over the no-context baseline. Large closed models typically outperform open models, and in general, the higher resource the language, the better the scores. These results indicate, in absence of memorisation, true multi-step out-of-domain reasoning remains a challenge for current language models.

SynDy: Synthetic Dynamic Dataset Generation Framework for Misinformation Tasks

Diaspora communities are disproportionately impacted by off-the-radar misinformation and often neglected by mainstream fact-checking efforts, creating a critical need to scale-up efforts of nascent fact-checking initiatives. In this paper we present SynDy, a framework for Synthetic Dynamic Dataset Generation to leverage the capabilities of the largest frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) to train local, specialized language models. To the best of our knowledge, SynDy is the first paper utilizing LLMs to create fine-grained synthetic labels for tasks of direct relevance to misinformation mitigation, namely Claim Matching, Topical Clustering, and Claim Relationship Classification. SynDy utilizes LLMs and social media queries to automatically generate distantly-supervised, topically-focused datasets with synthetic labels on these three tasks, providing essential tools to scale up human-led fact-checking at a fraction of the cost of human-annotated data. Training on SynDy's generated labels shows improvement over a standard baseline and is not significantly worse compared to training on human labels (which may be infeasible to acquire). SynDy is being integrated into Meedan's chatbot tiplines that are used by over 50 organizations, serve over 230K users annually, and automatically distribute human-written fact-checks via messaging apps such as WhatsApp. SynDy will also be integrated into our deployed Co-Insights toolkit, enabling low-resource organizations to launch tiplines for their communities. Finally, we envision SynDy enabling additional fact-checking tools such as matching new misinformation claims to high-quality explainers on common misinformation topics.