MOSCOW – Ukraine launched its biggest ever drone attack on Moscow on Tuesday but air defenses destroyed all eight of the drones, Russian authorities said, bringing the 15-month war in Ukraine to the heart of the Russian capital. Drone attacks deep inside Russia have intensified in recent weeks, with strikes on oil pipeline installations and even the Kremlin earlier this month that Moscow has blamed on Ukraine. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said two people were injured, one of whom was hospitalized, in the early morning attack. This could be due to a conflict with your ad-blocking or security software. Please add japantimes.co.jp and piano.io to your list of allowed sites.

The Russian capital has been hit by a rare drone attack that has caused "minor" damage to buildings and no casualties, the city's mayor said. "This morning, at dawn, a drone attack caused minor damage to several buildings. All the city's emergency services are on the scene … No one has been seriously injured so far," Moscow's mayor Sergei Sobyanin said in a statement on Tuesday. Moscow, located more than 1,000km (620 miles) from Ukraine, has only rarely been the target of drone attacks since the start of the conflict in Ukraine, even though such attacks have become more common elsewhere in Russia. Andrei Vorobyov, governor of the Moscow region, said on the Telegram channel that several drones were shot down on their approach to Moscow. It was not immediately clear who launched the drones.

Steve Wozniak is no fan of Elon Musk. In February, the Apple co-founder described the Tesla, SpaceX and Twitter owner as a "cult leader" and called him dishonest. Yet, in late March, the tech titans came together, joining dozens of high-profile academics, researchers and entrepreneurs in calling for a six-month pause in training artificial intelligence systems more powerful than GPT-4, the latest version of Chat GPT, the chatbot that has taken the world by storm. Their letter, penned by the United States-based Future of Life Institute, said the current rate of AI progress was becoming a "dangerous race to ever-larger unpredictable black-box models". The "emergent capabilities" of these models, the letter said, should be "refocused on making today's powerful, state-of-the-art systems more accurate, safe, interpretable, transparent, robust, aligned, trustworthy and loyal".

Despite a growing interest in diffusion-based language models, existing work has not shown that these models can attain nontrivial likelihoods on standard language modeling benchmarks. In this work, we take the first steps towards closing the likelihood gap between autoregressive and diffusion-based language models, with the goal of building and releasing a diffusion model which outperforms a small but widely-known autoregressive model. We pursue this goal through algorithmic improvements, scaling laws, and increased compute. On the algorithmic front, we introduce several methodological improvements for the maximum-likelihood training of diffusion language models. We then study scaling laws for our diffusion models and find compute-optimal training regimes which differ substantially from autoregressive models. Using our methods and scaling analysis, we train and release Plaid 1B, a large diffusion language model which outperforms GPT-2 124M in likelihood on benchmark datasets and generates fluent samples in unconditional and zero-shot control settings.

Since the introduction of the SemEval 2020 Task 11 (Martino et al., 2020a), several approaches have been proposed in the literature for classifying propaganda based on the rhetorical techniques used to influence readers. These methods, however, classify one span at a time, ignoring dependencies from the labels of other spans within the same context. In this paper, we approach propaganda technique classification as a Multi-Instance Multi-Label (MIML) learning problem (Zhou et al., 2012) and propose a simple RoBERTa-based model (Zhuang et al., 2021) for classifying all spans in an article simultaneously. Further, we note that, due to the annotation process where annotators classified the spans by following a decision tree, there is an inherent hierarchical relationship among the different techniques, which existing approaches ignore. We incorporate these hierarchical label dependencies by adding an auxiliary classifier for each node in the decision tree to the training objective and ensembling the predictions from the original and auxiliary classifiers at test time. Overall, our model leads to an absolute improvement of 2.47% micro-F1 over the model from the shared task winning team in a cross-validation setup and is the best performing non-ensemble model on the shared task leaderboard.

As advanced machine learning systems' capabilities begin to play a significant role in geopolitics and societal order, it may become imperative that (1) governments be able to enforce rules on the development of advanced ML systems within their borders, and (2) countries be able to verify each other's compliance with potential future international agreements on advanced ML development. This work analyzes one mechanism to achieve this, by monitoring the computing hardware used for large-scale NN training. The framework's primary goal is to provide governments high confidence that no actor uses large quantities of specialized ML chips to execute a training run in violation of agreed rules. At the same time, the system does not curtail the use of consumer computing devices, and maintains the privacy and confidentiality of ML practitioners' models, data, and hyperparameters. The system consists of interventions at three stages: (1) using on-chip firmware to occasionally save snapshots of the the neural network weights stored in device memory, in a form that an inspector could later retrieve; (2) saving sufficient information about each training run to prove to inspectors the details of the training run that had resulted in the snapshotted weights; and (3) monitoring the chip supply chain to ensure that no actor can avoid discovery by amassing a large quantity of un-tracked chips. The proposed design decomposes the ML training rule verification problem into a series of narrow technical challenges, including a new variant of the Proof-of-Learning problem [Jia et al. '21].

Saliency methods are a common class of machine learning interpretability techniques that calculate how important each input feature is to a model's output. We find that, with the rapid pace of development, users struggle to stay informed of the strengths and limitations of new methods and, thus, choose methods for unprincipled reasons (e.g., popularity). Moreover, despite a corresponding rise in evaluation metrics, existing approaches assume universal desiderata for saliency methods (e.g., faithfulness) that do not account for diverse user needs. In response, we introduce saliency cards: structured documentation of how saliency methods operate and their performance across a battery of evaluative metrics. Through a review of 25 saliency method papers and 33 method evaluations, we identify 10 attributes that users should account for when choosing a method. We group these attributes into three categories that span the process of computing and interpreting saliency: methodology, or how the saliency is calculated; sensitivity, or the relationship between the saliency and the underlying model and data; and, perceptibility, or how an end user ultimately interprets the result. By collating this information, saliency cards allow users to more holistically assess and compare the implications of different methods. Through nine semi-structured interviews with users from various backgrounds, including researchers, radiologists, and computational biologists, we find that saliency cards provide a detailed vocabulary for discussing individual methods and allow for a more systematic selection of task-appropriate methods. Moreover, with saliency cards, we are able to analyze the research landscape in a more structured fashion to identify opportunities for new methods and evaluation metrics for unmet user needs.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) systems suggests that artificial general intelligence (AGI) systems may soon arrive. Many researchers are concerned that AIs and AGIs will harm humans via intentional misuse (AI-misuse) or through accidents (AI-accidents). In respect of AI-accidents, there is an increasing effort focused on developing algorithms and paradigms that ensure AI systems are aligned to what humans intend, e.g. AI systems that yield actions or recommendations that humans might judge as consistent with their intentions and goals. Here we argue that alignment to human intent is insufficient for safe AI systems and that preservation of long-term agency of humans may be a more robust standard, and one that needs to be separated explicitly and a priori during optimization. We argue that AI systems can reshape human intention and discuss the lack of biological and psychological mechanisms that protect humans from loss of agency. We provide the first formal definition of agency-preserving AI-human interactions which focuses on forward-looking agency evaluations and argue that AI systems - not humans - must be increasingly tasked with making these evaluations. We show how agency loss can occur in simple environments containing embedded agents that use temporal-difference learning to make action recommendations. Finally, we propose a new area of research called "agency foundations" and pose four initial topics designed to improve our understanding of agency in AI-human interactions: benevolent game theory, algorithmic foundations of human rights, mechanistic interpretability of agency representation in neural-networks and reinforcement learning from internal states.

Do question answering (QA) modeling improvements (e.g., choice of architecture and training procedure) hold consistently across the diverse landscape of QA benchmarks? To study this question, we introduce the notion of concurrence -- two benchmarks have high concurrence on a set of modeling approaches if they rank the modeling approaches similarly. We measure the concurrence between 32 QA benchmarks on a set of 20 diverse modeling approaches and find that human-constructed benchmarks have high concurrence amongst themselves, even if their passage and question distributions are very different. Surprisingly, even downsampled human-constructed benchmarks (i.e., collecting less data) and programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g., cloze-formatted examples) have high concurrence with human-constructed benchmarks. These results indicate that, despite years of intense community focus on a small number of benchmarks, the modeling improvements studied hold broadly.

Long-form question answering systems provide rich information by presenting paragraph-level answers, often containing optional background or auxiliary information. While such comprehensive answers are helpful, not all information is required to answer the question (e.g. users with domain knowledge do not need an explanation of background). Can we provide a concise version of the answer by summarizing it, while still addressing the question? We conduct a user study on summarized answers generated from state-of-the-art models and our newly proposed extract-and-decontextualize approach. We find a large proportion of long-form answers (over 90%) in the ELI5 domain can be adequately summarized by at least one system, while complex and implicit answers are challenging to compress. We observe that decontextualization improves the quality of the extractive summary, exemplifying its potential in the summarization task. To promote future work, we provide an extractive summarization dataset covering 1K long-form answers and our user study annotations. Together, we present the first study on summarizing long-form answers, taking a step forward for QA agents that can provide answers at multiple granularities.