Language is not monolithic. While benchmarks, including those designed for multiple languages, are often used as proxies to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs), they tend to overlook the nuances of within-language variation and thus fail to model the experience of speakers of non-standard dialects. Focusing on African American Vernacular English (AAVE), we present the first study aimed at objectively assessing the fairness and robustness of LLMs in handling dialects across canonical reasoning tasks, including algorithm, math, logic, and integrated reasoning. We introduce **ReDial** (**Re**asoning with **Dial**ect Queries), a benchmark containing 1.2K+ parallel query pairs in Standardized English and AAVE. We hire AAVE speakers, including experts with computer science backgrounds, to rewrite seven popular benchmarks,such as HumanEval and GSM8K. With ReDial, we evaluate widely used LLMs, including GPT, Claude, Llama, Mistral, and the Phi model families. Our findings reveal that almost all of these widely used models show significant brittleness and unfairness to queries in AAVE. Our work establishes a systematic and objective framework for analyzing LLM bias in dialectal queries. Moreover, it highlights how mainstream LLMs provide unfair service to dialect speakers in reasoning tasks, laying a critical foundation for future research.

**Warning: this paper discusses content related, but not limited to, violence, sex, and suicide.**Loneliness, or the lack of fulfilling relationships, significantly impacts a person’s mental and physical well-being and is prevalent worldwide. Previous research suggests that large language models (LLMs) may help mitigate loneliness. However, we argue that the use of widespread LLMs in services like ChatGPT is more prevalent–and riskier, as they are not designed for this purpose. To explore this, we analysed user interactions with ChatGPT outside of its marketed use as a task-oriented assistant. In dialogues classified as lonely, users frequently (37%) sought advice or validation, and received good engagement. However, ChatGPT failed in sensitive scenarios, like responding appropriately to suicidal ideation or trauma. We also observed a 35% higher incidence of toxic content, with women being 22× more likely to be targeted than men. Our findings underscore ethical and legal questions about this technology, and note risks like radicalisation or further isolation. We conclude with recommendations to research and industry to address loneliness.

We perform a critical examination of the scientific methodology behind contemporary large language model (LLM) research. For this we assess over 2,000 research works released between 2020 and 2024 based on criteria typical of what is considered good research (e.g. presence of statistical tests and reproducibility), and cross-validate it with arguments that are at the centre of controversy (e.g., claims of emergent behaviour). We find multiple trends, such as declines in ethics disclaimers, a rise of LLMs as evaluators, and an increase on claims of LLM reasoning abilities without leveraging human evaluation. We note that conference checklists are effective at curtailing some of these issues, but balancing velocity and rigour in research cannot solely rely on these. We tie all these findings to findings from recent meta-reviews and extend recommendations on how to address what does, does not, and should work in LLM research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, yet their evaluation, particularly in languages beyond the top 20, remains inadequate due to existing benchmarks and metrics limitations. Employing LLMs as evaluators to rank or score other models’ outputs emerges as a viable solution, addressing the constraints tied to human annotators and established benchmarks. In this study, we explore the potential of LLM-based evaluators in enhancing multilingual evaluation by calibrating them against 20K human judgments across three text-generation tasks, five metrics, and eight languages. Our analysis reveals a bias in LLM-based evaluators towards higher scores, underscoring the necessity of calibration with native speaker judgments, especially in low-resource and non-Latin script languages, to ensure accurate evaluation of LLM performance across diverse languages.