Ultrasound (US) is one of the most widely used modalities for clinical intervention and diagnosis due to the merits of providing non-invasive, radiation-free, and real-time images. However, free-hand US examinations are highly operator-dependent. Robotic US System (RUSS) aims at overcoming this shortcoming by offering reproducibility, while also aiming at improving dexterity, and intelligent anatomy and disease-aware imaging. In addition to enhancing diagnostic outcomes, RUSS also holds the potential to provide medical interventions for populations suffering from the shortage of experienced sonographers. In this paper, we categorize RUSS as teleoperated or autonomous. Regarding teleoperated RUSS, we summarize their technical developments, and clinical evaluations, respectively. This survey then focuses on the review of recent work on autonomous robotic US imaging. We demonstrate that machine learning and artificial intelligence present the key techniques, which enable intelligent patient and process-specific, motion and deformation-aware robotic image acquisition. We also show that the research on artificial intelligence for autonomous RUSS has directed the research community toward understanding and modeling expert sonographers' semantic reasoning and action. Here, we call this process, the recovery of the "language of sonography". This side result of research on autonomous robotic US acquisitions could be considered as valuable and essential as the progress made in the robotic US examination itself. This article will provide both engineers and clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of RUSS by surveying underlying techniques.

The rise of powerful large language models (LLMs) brings about tremendous opportunities for innovation but also looming risks for individuals and society at large. We have reached a pivotal moment for ensuring that LLMs and LLM-infused applications are developed and deployed responsibly. However, a central pillar of responsible AI -- transparency -- is largely missing from the current discourse around LLMs. It is paramount to pursue new approaches to provide transparency for LLMs, and years of research at the intersection of AI and human-computer interaction (HCI) highlight that we must do so with a human-centered perspective: Transparency is fundamentally about supporting appropriate human understanding, and this understanding is sought by different stakeholders with different goals in different contexts. In this new era of LLMs, we must develop and design approaches to transparency by considering the needs of stakeholders in the emerging LLM ecosystem, the novel types of LLM-infused applications being built, and the new usage patterns and challenges around LLMs, all while building on lessons learned about how people process, interact with, and make use of information. We reflect on the unique challenges that arise in providing transparency for LLMs, along with lessons learned from HCI and responsible AI research that has taken a human-centered perspective on AI transparency. We then lay out four common approaches that the community has taken to achieve transparency -- model reporting, publishing evaluation results, providing explanations, and communicating uncertainty -- and call out open questions around how these approaches may or may not be applied to LLMs. We hope this provides a starting point for discussion and a useful roadmap for future research.

Numerous parties are calling for the democratisation of AI, but the phrase is used to refer to a variety of goals, the pursuit of which sometimes conflict. This paper identifies four kinds of AI democratisation that are commonly discussed: (1) the democratisation of AI use, (2) the democratisation of AI development, (3) the democratisation of AI profits, and (4) the democratisation of AI governance. Numerous goals and methods of achieving each form of democratisation are discussed. The main takeaway from this paper is that AI democratisation is a multifarious and sometimes conflicting concept that should not be conflated with improving AI accessibility. If we want to move beyond ambiguous commitments to democratising AI, to productive discussions of concrete policies and trade-offs, then we need to recognise the principal role of the democratisation of AI governance in navigating tradeoffs and risks across decisions around use, development, and profits.

Unsupervised Domain Adaptation demonstrates great potential to mitigate domain shifts by transferring models from labeled source domains to unlabeled target domains. While Unsupervised Domain Adaptation has been applied to a wide variety of complex vision tasks, only few works focus on lane detection for autonomous driving. This can be attributed to the lack of publicly available datasets. To facilitate research in these directions, we propose CARLANE, a 3-way sim-to-real domain adaptation benchmark for 2D lane detection. CARLANE encompasses the single-target datasets MoLane and TuLane and the multi-target dataset MuLane. These datasets are built from three different domains, which cover diverse scenes and contain a total of 163K unique images, 118K of which are annotated. In addition we evaluate and report systematic baselines, including our own method, which builds upon Prototypical Cross-domain Self-supervised Learning. We find that false positive and false negative rates of the evaluated domain adaptation methods are high compared to those of fully supervised baselines. This affirms the need for benchmarks such as CARLANE to further strengthen research in Unsupervised Domain Adaptation for lane detection. CARLANE, all evaluated models and the corresponding implementations are publicly available at https://carlanebenchmark.github.io.

At a White House summit on July 21, the Biden administration brought together the heads of seven different A.I. companies. A lot of the big names were there--Meta, Google, OpenAI--and they all signed "voluntary commitments" to safeguard artificial intelligence. In the Senate, Chuck Schumer is proposing a framework that legislators can use to tackle A.I. issues. But while the A.I. industry is moving at a breakneck pace, Washington is, as usual, slow to regulate. On Friday's episode of What Next: TBD, I spoke with Makena Kelly, who covers politics and policy for the Verge, about whether Washington can keep up with A.I. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

We present a critical assessment of Piantadosi's (2023) claim that "Modern language models refute Chomsky's approach to language," focusing on four main points. First, despite the impressive performance and utility of large language models (LLMs), humans achieve their capacity for language after exposure to several orders of magnitude less data. The fact that young children become competent, fluent speakers of their native languages with relatively little exposure to them is the central mystery of language learning to which Chomsky initially drew attention, and LLMs currently show little promise of solving this mystery. Second, what can the artificial reveal about the natural? Put simply, the implications of LLMs for our understanding of the cognitive structures and mechanisms underlying language and its acquisition are like the implications of airplanes for understanding how birds fly. Third, LLMs cannot constitute scientific theories of language for several reasons, not least of which is that scientific theories must provide interpretable explanations, not just predictions. This leads to our final point: to even determine whether the linguistic and cognitive capabilities of LLMs rival those of humans requires explicating what humans' capacities actually are. In other words, it requires a separate theory of language and cognition; generative linguistics provides precisely such a theory. As such, we conclude that generative linguistics as a scientific discipline will remain indispensable throughout the 21st century and beyond.

Abstractive dialogue summarization generates a concise and fluent summary covering the salient information in a dialogue among two or more interlocutors. It has attracted significant attention in recent years based on the massive emergence of social communication platforms and an urgent requirement for efficient dialogue information understanding and digestion. Different from news or articles in traditional document summarization, dialogues bring unique characteristics and additional challenges, including different language styles and formats, scattered information, flexible discourse structures, and unclear topic boundaries. This survey provides a comprehensive investigation of existing work for abstractive dialogue summarization from scenarios, approaches to evaluations. It categorizes the task into two broad categories according to the type of input dialogues, i.e., open-domain and task-oriented, and presents a taxonomy of existing techniques in three directions, namely, injecting dialogue features, designing auxiliary training tasks and using additional data. A list of datasets under different scenarios and widely-accepted evaluation metrics are summarized for completeness. After that, the trends of scenarios and techniques are summarized, together with deep insights into correlations between extensively exploited features and different scenarios. Based on these analyses, we recommend future directions, including more controlled and complicated scenarios, technical innovations and comparisons, publicly available datasets in special domains, etc. CCS Concepts: Computing methodologies Natural language generation; Discourse, dialogue and pragmatics; General and reference Surveys and overviews.

As the prevalence of data analysis grows, safeguarding data privacy has become a paramount concern. Consequently, there has been an upsurge in the development of mechanisms aimed at privacy-preserving data analyses. However, these approaches are task-specific; designing algorithms for new tasks is a cumbersome process. As an alternative, one can create synthetic data that is (ideally) devoid of private information. This paper focuses on privacy-preserving data synthesis (PPDS) by providing a comprehensive overview, analysis, and discussion of the field. Specifically, we put forth a master recipe that unifies two prominent strands of research in PPDS: statistical methods and deep learning (DL)-based methods. Under the master recipe, we further dissect the statistical methods into choices of modeling and representation, and investigate the DL-based methods by different generative modeling principles. To consolidate our findings, we provide comprehensive reference tables, distill key takeaways, and identify open problems in the existing literature. In doing so, we aim to answer the following questions: What are the design principles behind different PPDS methods? How can we categorize these methods, and what are the advantages and disadvantages associated with each category? Can we provide guidelines for method selection in different real-world scenarios? We proceed to benchmark several prominent DL-based methods on the task of private image synthesis and conclude that DP-MERF is an all-purpose approach. Finally, upon systematizing the work over the past decade, we identify future directions and call for actions from researchers.

Google just won a partial reprieve in one of the antitrust cases leveled against the company. Federal Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and key states can't claim that Google is protecting a monopoly by promoting its own products in search results over alternatives. The plaintiffs haven't proved there's an "anticompetitive effect," according to the decision. Judge Mehta also tossed antitrust allegations regarding Android's compatibility and anti-fragmentation agreements, Google Assistant, internet of things devices and the Android Open Source Project. The DOJ can still make its remaining arguments, Judge Mehta says.

The trial will begin in the midst of a boom in generative AI -- a wave of new technology that has been pushed by Google's competitors and has thrown the company onto its back foot. Google executives have already begun arguing that the rise of AI companies like OpenAI shows that the tech world is still competitive and that the company doesn't have an unfair grip on who wins and who loses, as some antitrust experts and the company's competitors have argued.