On July 13, 1833, during a visit to the Cabinet of Natural History at the Jardin des Plantes, in Paris, Ralph Waldo Emerson had an epiphany. Peering at the museum's specimens--butterflies, hunks of amber and marble, carved seashells--he felt overwhelmed by the interconnectedness of nature, and humankind's place within it. Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read. The experience inspired him to write "The Uses of Natural History," and to articulate a philosophy that put naturalism at the center of intellectual life in a technologically chaotic age--guiding him, along with the collective of writers and radical thinkers known as transcendentalists, to a new spiritual belief system. Through empirical observation of the natural world, Emerson believed, anyone could become "a definer and map-maker of the latitudes and longitudes of our condition"--finding agency, individuality, and wonder in a mechanized age. America was crackling with invention in those years, and everything seemed to be speeding up as a result.

Recently, the White House decided that appointing an unqualified, politicized leader is perfect for tackling the complex issue of AI regulation. Kamala Harris, who has now become the AI czar, will likely lead America into a very gloomy future. The nation must correct this blunder before it's too late. We can only solve a problem by asking the right questions and Harris and the polarized Congress are clearly unable to do so. The United States must replace her with an unbiased committee of experts who can protect and fully develop effective AI regulations.

Retrosynthesis is a procedure where a target molecule is transformed into potential reactants and thus the synthesis routes can be identified. Recently, computational approaches have been developed to accelerate the design of synthesis routes. In this paper, we develop a generative framework $\mathsf{G^2Retro}$ for one-step retrosynthesis prediction. $\mathsf{G^2Retro}$ imitates the reversed logic of synthetic reactions. It first predicts the reaction centers in the target molecules (products), identifies the synthons needed to assemble the products, and transforms these synthons into reactants. $\mathsf{G^2Retro}$ defines a comprehensive set of reaction center types, and learns from the molecular graphs of the products to predict potential reaction centers. To complete synthons into reactants, $\mathsf{G^2Retro}$ considers all the involved synthon structures and the product structures to identify the optimal completion paths, and accordingly attaches small substructures sequentially to the synthons. Here we show that $\mathsf{G^2Retro}$ is able to better predict the reactants for given products in the benchmark dataset than the state-of-the-art methods.

Existing regulations prohibit model developers from accessing protected attributes (gender, race, etc.), often resulting in fairness assessments on populations without knowing their protected groups. In such scenarios, institutions often adopt a separation between the model developers (who train models with no access to the protected attributes) and a compliance team (who may have access to the entire dataset for auditing purposes). However, the model developers might be allowed to test their models for bias by querying the compliance team for group fairness metrics. In this paper, we first demonstrate that simply querying for fairness metrics, such as statistical parity and equalized odds can leak the protected attributes of individuals to the model developers. We demonstrate that there always exist strategies by which the model developers can identify the protected attribute of a targeted individual in the test dataset from just a single query. In particular, we show that one can reconstruct the protected attributes of all the individuals from O(Nk \log( n /Nk)) queries when Nk<

This research aims to build generative language models specialized for the legal domain. The manuscript presents the development of LexGPT models based on GPT-J models and pre-trained with Pile of Law. The foundation model built in this manuscript is the initial step for the development of future applications in the legal domain, such as further training with reinforcement learning from human feedback. Another objective of this manuscript is to assist legal professionals in utilizing language models through the ``No Code'' approach. By fine-tuning models with specialized data and without modifying any source code, legal professionals can create custom language models for downstream tasks with minimum effort and technical knowledge. The downstream task in this manuscript is to turn a LexGPT model into a classifier, although the performance is notably lower than the state-of-the-art result. How to enhance downstream task performance without modifying the model or its source code is a research topic for future exploration.

As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) has made outstanding strides in recent years, with a good-sized impact on software product management. Drawing on pertinent articles from 2016 to 2023, this systematic literature evaluation reveals generative AI's potential applications, benefits, and constraints in this area. The study shows that technology can assist in idea generation, market research, customer insights, product requirements engineering, and product development. It can help reduce development time and costs through automatic code generation, customer feedback analysis, and more. However, the technology's accuracy, reliability, and ethical consideration persist. Ultimately, generative AI's practical application can significantly improve software product management activities, leading to more efficient use of resources, better product outcomes, and improved end-user experiences.

In this paper, we present a novel framework for enhancing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by leveraging the power of multi-agent systems. Our framework introduces a collaborative environment where multiple intelligent agent components, each with distinctive attributes and roles, work together to handle complex tasks more efficiently and effectively. We demonstrate the practicality and versatility of our framework through case studies in artificial general intelligence (AGI), specifically focusing on the Auto-GPT and BabyAGI models. We also examine the "Gorilla" model, which integrates external APIs into the LLM. Our framework addresses limitations and challenges such as looping issues, security risks, scalability, system evaluation, and ethical considerations. By modeling various domains such as courtroom simulations and software development scenarios, we showcase the potential applications and benefits of our proposed multi-agent system. Our framework provides an avenue for advancing the capabilities and performance of LLMs through collaboration and knowledge exchange among intelligent agents.

We present the NeurIPS 2021 consistency experiment, a larger-scale variant of the 2014 NeurIPS experiment in which 10% of conference submissions were reviewed by two independent committees to quantify the randomness in the review process. We observe that the two committees disagree on their accept/reject recommendations for 23% of the papers and that, consistent with the results from 2014, approximately half of the list of accepted papers would change if the review process were randomly rerun. Our analysis suggests that making the conference more selective would increase the arbitrariness of the process. Taken together with previous research, our results highlight the inherent difficulty of objectively measuring the quality of research, and suggest that authors should not be excessively discouraged by rejected work.

With the increasing diversity of use cases of large language models, a more informative treatment of texts seems necessary. An argumentative analysis could foster a more reasoned usage of chatbots, text completion mechanisms or other applications. However, it is unclear which aspects of argumentation can be reliably identified and integrated in language models. In this paper, we present an empirical assessment of the reliability with which different argumentative aspects can be automatically identified in hate speech in social media. We have enriched the Hateval corpus (Basile et al. 2019) with a manual annotation of some argumentative components, adapted from Wagemans (2016)'s Periodic Table of Arguments. We show that some components can be identified with reasonable reliability. For those that present a high error ratio, we analyze the patterns of disagreement between expert annotators and errors in automatic procedures, and we propose adaptations of those categories that can be more reliably reproduced.