With the growing importance of detecting misinformation, many studies have focused on verifying factual claims by retrieving evidence. However, canonical fact verification tasks do not apply to catching subtle differences in factually consistent claims, which might still bias the readers, especially on contentious political or economic issues. Our underlying assumption is that among the trusted sources, one's argument is not necessarily more true than the other, requiring comparison rather than verification. In this study, we propose ClaimDiff, a novel dataset that primarily focuses on comparing the nuance between claim pairs. In ClaimDiff, we provide 2,941 annotated claim pairs from 268 news articles. We observe that while humans are capable of detecting the nuances between claims, strong baselines struggle to detect them, showing over a 19% absolute gap with the humans. We hope this initial study could help readers to gain an unbiased grasp of contentious issues through machine-aided comparison.

M-1 with three hidden layers produces the best results of RMSE and MAPE compared to the proposed M-2, M-3, and all the baselines. A recommendation for air pollution management could be generated by using these optimized models. This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). I. Introduction In air quality monitoring systems, PM2.5 concentration is a crucial measure. As public awareness rises, analyzing and anticipating pollution levels is vital. Monitoring stations can only perform a small role in PM2.5 pollution control due to the nonlinear character of PM2.5 concentrations in both time and space. As a result, improving PM2.5 concentrations prediction accuracy is crucial for preventing and controlling air pollution. Several studies have been conducted using machine learning techniques, such as neural networks, applied to environmental science issues. As a part of a neural network, deep learning is a technique that achieves high performance for various applications such as natural language processing, visual recognition, and forecasting has recently gained attention in the machine learning field.

The tremendous recent advances in generative artificial intelligence techniques have led to significant successes and promise in a wide range of different applications ranging from conversational agents and textual content generation to voice and visual synthesis. Amid the rise in generative AI and its increasing widespread adoption, there has been significant growing concern over the use of generative AI for malicious purposes. In the realm of visual content synthesis using generative AI, key areas of significant concern has been image forgery (e.g., generation of images containing or derived from copyright content), and data poisoning (i.e., generation of adversarially contaminated images). Motivated to address these key concerns to encourage responsible generative AI, we introduce the DeepfakeArt Challenge, a large-scale challenge benchmark dataset designed specifically to aid in the building of machine learning algorithms for generative AI art forgery and data poisoning detection. Comprising of over 32,000 records across a variety of generative forgery and data poisoning techniques, each entry consists of a pair of images that are either forgeries / adversarially contaminated or not. Each of the generated images in the DeepfakeArt Challenge benchmark dataset has been quality checked in a comprehensive manner. The DeepfakeArt Challenge is a core part of GenAI4Good, a global open source initiative for accelerating machine learning for promoting responsible creation and deployment of generative AI for good.

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what's clicking on Foxnews.com. Two apologetic lawyers responding to an angry judge in Manhattan federal court blamed ChatGPT Thursday for tricking them into including fictitious legal research in a court filing. Attorneys Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca are facing possible punishment over a filing in a lawsuit against an airline that included references to past court cases that Schwartz thought were real, but were actually invented by the artificial intelligence-powered chatbot. Schwartz explained that he used the groundbreaking program as he hunted for legal precedents supporting a client's case against the Colombian airline Avianca for an injury incurred on a 2019 flight.

Rishi Sunak has announced that the UK will host a global summit on safety in artificial intelligence in the autumn, as fears grow that the technology's rapid advancement could spin out of control. Safety concerns are mounting after breakthroughs in generative AI, which can produce convincing text, images and even voice on command, with tech executives such as Elon Musk among the figures expressing alarm. Here is a look at what the summit might achieve. What is the aim of the summit? The prime minister has changed his tone on AI in recent weeks.

This article first appeared in our Slatest evening newsletter, which seeks to surface the best pieces published across Slate's digital and audio journalism. We publish it there to help you cut to the chase at the end of each day. To get it in your inbox, along with more of the best work we published that day, sign up below. The best of Slate, delivered late. You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time.

Large language models (LLMs) have become mainstream technology with their versatile use cases and impressive performance. Despite the countless out-of-the-box applications, LLMs are still not reliable. A lot of work is being done to improve the factual accuracy, consistency, and ethical standards of these models through fine-tuning, prompting, and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), but no systematic analysis of the responses of these models to different categories of statements, or on their potential vulnerabilities to simple prompting changes is available. In this work, we analyze what confuses GPT-3: how the model responds to certain sensitive topics and what effects the prompt wording has on the model response. We find that GPT-3 correctly disagrees with obvious Conspiracies and Stereotypes but makes mistakes with common Misconceptions and Controversies. The model responses are inconsistent across prompts and settings, highlighting GPT-3's unreliability. Dataset and code of our analysis is available in https://github.com/tanny411/GPT3-Reliability-Check.

OpenAI has released the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) and revolutionized the approach in artificial intelligence to human-model interaction. Several publications on ChatGPT evaluation test its effectiveness on well-known natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, the existing studies are mostly non-automated and tested on a very limited scale. In this work, we examined ChatGPT's capabilities on 25 diverse analytical NLP tasks, most of them subjective even to humans, such as sentiment analysis, emotion recognition, offensiveness, and stance detection. In contrast, the other tasks require more objective reasoning like word sense disambiguation, linguistic acceptability, and question answering. We also evaluated GPT-4 model on five selected subsets of NLP tasks. We automated ChatGPT and GPT-4 prompting process and analyzed more than 49k responses. Our comparison of its results with available State-of-the-Art (SOTA) solutions showed that the average loss in quality of the ChatGPT model was about 25% for zero-shot and few-shot evaluation. For GPT-4 model, a loss for semantic tasks is significantly lower than for ChatGPT. We showed that the more difficult the task (lower SOTA performance), the higher the ChatGPT loss. It especially refers to pragmatic NLP problems like emotion recognition. We also tested the ability to personalize ChatGPT responses for selected subjective tasks via Random Contextual Few-Shot Personalization, and we obtained significantly better user-based predictions. Additional qualitative analysis revealed a ChatGPT bias, most likely due to the rules imposed on human trainers by OpenAI. Our results provide the basis for a fundamental discussion of whether the high quality of recent predictive NLP models can indicate a tool's usefulness to society and how the learning and validation procedures for such systems should be established.

Synthetic realities are digital creations or augmentations that are contextually generated through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods, leveraging extensive amounts of data to construct new narratives or realities, regardless of the intent to deceive. In this paper, we delve into the concept of synthetic realities and their implications for Digital Forensics and society at large within the rapidly advancing field of AI. We highlight the crucial need for the development of forensic techniques capable of identifying harmful synthetic creations and distinguishing them from reality. This is especially important in scenarios involving the creation and dissemination of fake news, disinformation, and misinformation. Our focus extends to various forms of media, such as images, videos, audio, and text, as we examine how synthetic realities are crafted and explore approaches to detecting these malicious creations. Additionally, we shed light on the key research challenges that lie ahead in this area. This study is of paramount importance due to the rapid progress of AI generative techniques and their impact on the fundamental principles of Forensic Science.

Foundation models, i.e. large neural networks pre-trained on large text corpora, have revolutionized NLP. They can be instructed directly (e.g. (arXiv:2005.14165)) - this is called hard prompting - and they can be tuned using very little data (e.g. (arXiv:2104.08691)) - this technique is called soft prompting. We seek to leverage their capabilities to detect policy violations. Our contributions are: We identify a hard prompt that adapts chain-of-thought prompting to policy violation tasks. This prompt produces policy violation classifications, along with extractive explanations that justify the classification. We compose the hard-prompts with soft prompt tuning to produce a classifier that attains high accuracy with very little supervision; the same classifier also produces explanations. Though the supervision only acts on the classifications, we find that the modified explanations remain consistent with the (tuned) model's response. Along the way, we identify several unintuitive aspects of foundation models. For instance, adding an example from a specific class can actually reduce predictions of that class, and separately, the effects of tokenization on scoring etc. Based on our technical results, we identify a simple workflow for product teams to quickly develop effective policy violation detectors.