John C. Herman, of Herman Jones LLP in Atlanta, told Fox News Digital that Google's control of wide swaths of digital content, powered with the emergence of artificial intelligence, gives it the potential for '"terrifying" power. The attorney behind a major class-action lawsuit against Google claims that advances in artificial intelligence give the digital monopoly almost unlimited power to control lives, influence thought and shape society. "When the average person interacts with the internet, Google monitors and controls everything," John C. Herman, of Herman Jones LLP in Atlanta, told Fox News Digital. "From the search results, to the advertisements, to the web pages themselves, Google controls it all," he said. INVISIBLE AI'S'INTELLIGENT AGENT' CAMERAS CAN SEE WHAT AUTOWORKERS AND MACHINES ARE DOING WRONG He also said, "Adding in an AI component, we now have a single company that dictates what news people see, what products they buy and even how they vote."

Brian Montgomery, who lost his son to suicide after he was extorted, discussed the loss of his son and how teen boys have been blackmailed over explicit pictures on'America's Newsroom.' If you or someone you know is having thoughts of suicide, please contact the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-TALK (8255). Artifical intelligence-generated "deepfakes" are fueling sextortion scams like dried up brush in an out-of-control wildfire. The number of nationally reported sextortion cases increased 322% between February 2022 and February 2023, according to the FBI, which said last week there's been a significant uptick since April because of AI-doctored images. Innocent pictures or videos uploaded to social media or sent in messages can be twisted into sexually explicit, AI-generated images that are "true-to-life" and nearly impossible to discern, the FBI said.

When making strategic decisions, we are often confronted with overwhelming information to process. The situation can be further complicated when some pieces of evidence are contradicted each other or paradoxical. The challenge then becomes how to determine which information is useful and which ones should be eliminated. This process is known as meta-decision. Likewise, when it comes to using Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems for strategic decision-making, placing trust in the AI itself becomes a meta-decision, given that many AI systems are viewed as opaque "black boxes" that process large amounts of data. Trusting an opaque system involves deciding on the level of Trustworthy AI (TAI). We propose a new approach to address this issue by introducing a novel taxonomy or framework of TAI, which encompasses three crucial domains: articulate, authentic, and basic for different levels of trust. To underpin these domains, we create ten dimensions to measure trust: explainability/transparency, fairness/diversity, generalizability, privacy, data governance, safety/robustness, accountability, reproducibility, reliability, and sustainability. We aim to use this taxonomy to conduct a comprehensive survey and explore different TAI approaches from a strategic decision-making perspective.

In recent years, large language models (e.g., Open AI's GPT-4, Meta's LLaMa, Google's PaLM) have become the dominant approach for building AI systems to analyze and generate language online. However, the automated systems that increasingly mediate our interactions online -- such as chatbots, content moderation systems, and search engines -- are primarily designed for and work far more effectively in English than in the world's other 7,000 languages. Recently, researchers and technology companies have attempted to extend the capabilities of large language models into languages other than English by building what are called multilingual language models. In this paper, we explain how these multilingual language models work and explore their capabilities and limits. Part I provides a simple technical explanation of how large language models work, why there is a gap in available data between English and other languages, and how multilingual language models attempt to bridge that gap. Part II accounts for the challenges of doing content analysis with large language models in general and multilingual language models in particular. Part III offers recommendations for companies, researchers, and policymakers to keep in mind when considering researching, developing and deploying large and multilingual language models.

Generative AI models continue to become more powerful. The launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has ushered in a new era of AI. ChatGPT and other similar chatbots have a range of capabilities, from answering student homework questions to creating music and art. There are already concerns that humans may be replaced by chatbots for a variety of jobs. Because of the wide spectrum of data chatbots are built on, we know that they will have human errors and human biases built into them. These biases may cause significant harm and/or inequity toward different subpopulations. To understand the strengths and weakness of chatbot responses, we present a position paper that explores different use cases of ChatGPT to determine the types of questions that are answered fairly and the types that still need improvement. We find that ChatGPT is a fair search engine for the tasks we tested; however, it has biases on both text generation and code generation. We find that ChatGPT is very sensitive to changes in the prompt, where small changes lead to different levels of fairness. This suggests that we need to immediately implement "corrections" or mitigation strategies in order to improve fairness of these systems. We suggest different strategies to improve chatbots and also advocate for an impartial review panel that has access to the model parameters to measure the levels of different types of biases and then recommends safeguards that move toward responses that are less discriminatory and more accurate.

The rise of machine learning (ML) is accompanied by several high-profile cases that have stressed the need for fairness, accountability, explainability and trust in ML systems. The existing literature has largely focused on fully automated ML approaches that try to optimize for some performance metric. However, human-centric measures like fairness, trust, explainability, etc. are subjective in nature, context-dependent, and might not correlate with conventional performance metrics. To deal with these challenges, we explore a human-centered AI approach that empowers people by providing more transparency and human control. In this dissertation, we present 5 research projects that aim to enhance explainability and fairness in classification systems and word embeddings. The first project explores the utility/downsides of introducing local model explanations as interfaces for machine teachers (crowd workers). Our study found that adding explanations supports trust calibration for the resulting ML model and enables rich forms of teaching feedback. The second project presents D-BIAS, a causality-based human-in-the-loop visual tool for identifying and mitigating social biases in tabular datasets. Apart from fairness, we found that our tool also enhances trust and accountability. The third project presents WordBias, a visual interactive tool that helps audit pre-trained static word embeddings for biases against groups, such as females, or subgroups, such as Black Muslim females. The fourth project presents DramatVis Personae, a visual analytics tool that helps identify social biases in creative writing. Finally, the last project presents an empirical study aimed at understanding the cumulative impact of multiple fairness-enhancing interventions at different stages of the ML pipeline on fairness, utility and different population groups. We conclude by discussing some of the future directions.

Despite its many advantages, private training lacks the flexibility in adapting to incremental changes to the training dataset such as deletion requests from exercising GDPR's right to be forgotten. We revisit a long-forgotten alternative, known as private prediction [Dwork and Feldman, 2018], and propose a new algorithm named Individual Kernelized Nearest Neighbor (Ind-KNN). Ind-KNN is easily updatable over dataset changes and it allows precise control of the Rényi DP at an individual user level -- a user's privacy loss is measured by the exact amount of her contribution to predictions; and a user is removed if her prescribed privacy budget runs out. Our results show that Ind-KNN consistently improves the accuracy over existing private prediction methods for a wide range of ɛ on four vision and language tasks. We also illustrate several cases under which Ind-KNN is preferable over private training with NoisySGD.

Better understanding of Large Language Models' (LLMs) legal analysis abilities can contribute to improving the efficiency of legal services, governing artificial intelligence, and leveraging LLMs to identify inconsistencies in law. This paper explores LLM capabilities in applying tax law. We choose this area of law because it has a structure that allows us to set up automated validation pipelines across thousands of examples, requires logical reasoning and maths skills, and enables us to test LLM capabilities in a manner relevant to real-world economic lives of citizens and companies. Our experiments demonstrate emerging legal understanding capabilities, with improved performance in each subsequent OpenAI model release. We experiment with retrieving and utilising the relevant legal authority to assess the impact of providing additional legal context to LLMs. Few-shot prompting, presenting examples of question-answer pairs, is also found to significantly enhance the performance of the most advanced model, GPT-4. The findings indicate that LLMs, particularly when combined with prompting enhancements and the correct legal texts, can perform at high levels of accuracy but not yet at expert tax lawyer levels. As LLMs continue to advance, their ability to reason about law autonomously could have significant implications for the legal profession and AI governance.

Generative AI systems across modalities, ranging from text, image, audio, and video, have broad social impacts, but there exists no official standard for means of evaluating those impacts and which impacts should be evaluated. We move toward a standard approach in evaluating a generative AI system for any modality, in two overarching categories: what is able to be evaluated in a base system that has no predetermined application and what is able to be evaluated in society. We describe specific social impact categories and how to approach and conduct evaluations in the base technical system, then in people and society. Our framework for a base system defines seven categories of social impact: bias, stereotypes, and representational harms; cultural values and sensitive content; disparate performance; privacy and data protection; financial costs; environmental costs; and data and content moderation labor costs. Suggested methods for evaluation apply to all modalities and analyses of the limitations of existing evaluations serve as a starting point for necessary investment in future evaluations. We offer five overarching categories for what is able to be evaluated in society, each with their own subcategories: trustworthiness and autonomy; inequality, marginalization, and violence; concentration of authority; labor and creativity; and ecosystem and environment. Each subcategory includes recommendations for mitigating harm. We are concurrently crafting an evaluation repository for the AI research community to contribute existing evaluations along the given categories. This version will be updated following a CRAFT session at ACM FAccT 2023.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.