Generative AI models like DALL-E 2 can interpret textual prompts and generate high-quality images exhibiting human creativity. Though public enthusiasm is booming, systematic auditing of potential gender biases in AI-generated images remains scarce. We addressed this gap by examining the prevalence of two occupational gender biases (representational and presentational biases) in 15,300 DALL-E 2 images spanning 153 occupations, and assessed potential bias amplification by benchmarking against 2021 census labor statistics and Google Images. Our findings reveal that DALL-E 2 underrepresents women in male-dominated fields while overrepresenting them in female-dominated occupations. Additionally, DALL-E 2 images tend to depict more women than men with smiling faces and downward-pitching heads, particularly in female-dominated (vs. male-dominated) occupations. Our computational algorithm auditing study demonstrates more pronounced representational and presentational biases in DALL-E 2 compared to Google Images and calls for feminist interventions to prevent such bias-laden AI-generated images to feedback into the media ecology.

In eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), counterfactual explanations are known to give simple, short, and comprehensible justifications for complex model decisions. However, we are yet to see more applied studies in which they are applied in real-world cases. To fill this gap, this study focuses on showing how counterfactuals are applied to employability-related problems which involve complex machine learning algorithms. For these use cases, we use real data obtained from a public Belgian employment institution (VDAB). The use cases presented go beyond the mere application of counterfactuals as explanations, showing how they can enhance decision support, comply with legal requirements, guide controlled changes, and analyze novel insights.

Identifying, classifying, and analyzing arguments in legal discourse has been a prominent area of research since the inception of the argument mining field. However, there has been a major discrepancy between the way natural language processing (NLP) researchers model and annotate arguments in court decisions and the way legal experts understand and analyze legal argumentation. While computational approaches typically simplify arguments into generic premises and claims, arguments in legal research usually exhibit a rich typology that is important for gaining insights into the particular case and applications of law in general. We address this problem and make several substantial contributions to move the field forward. First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research. Second, we compile and annotate a large corpus of 373 court decisions (2.3M tokens and 15k annotated argument spans). Finally, we train an argument mining model that outperforms state-of-the-art models in the legal NLP domain and provide a thorough expert-based evaluation. All datasets and source codes are available under open lincenses at https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took questions from reporters following his congressional hearing and defined "scary AI." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said people should not try to "anthropomorphize" artificial intelligence and should discuss the powerful tech systems in the context of it being a "tool" and not a "creature." "I think there's a huge amount of speculation on that question," Altman told reporters Tuesday on Capitol Hill when asked how quickly AI could become "self-aware" if Congress does not regulate the technology. The line of questioning had echoes of the "Terminator" film series, in which AI brings about the apocalypse on the day it becomes "self-aware." "I think it's very important that we keep talking about this as a tool, not a creature, because it's so tempting to anthropomorphize it," he added. "I totally understand where the anxiety comes from. I think it's the wrong frame … the wrong way to think about it."

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman made an appeal to members of Congress under oath: Regulate artificial intelligence. Altman, whose company is on the extreme forefront of generative A.I. technology with its ChatGPT tool, testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time in a Tuesday hearing. And while he said he is ultimately optimistic that innovation will benefit people on a grand scale, Altman echoed his previous assertion that lawmakers should create parameters for AI creators to avoid causing "significant harm to the world." "We think it can be a printing press moment," Altman said. "We have to work together to make it so."

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, the artificial intelligence lab behind ChatGPT, took questions from reporters following his congressional hearing, including defining "scary AI." OpenAI CEO Sam Altman outlined examples of "scary AI" to Fox News Digital after he served as a witness for a Senate subcommittee hearing on potential regulations on artificial intelligence. "Sure," Altman said when asked by Fox News Digital to provide an example of "scary AI." "An AI that could design novel biological pathogens. An AI that could hack into computer systems. I think these are all scary." "These systems can become quite powerful, which is why I was happy to be here today and why I think this is so important." Altman appeared before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law on Tuesday morning to speak with lawmakers about how to best regulate the technology.

Money has existed for several thousand years, and from the outset counterfeiting was recognized to be a very serious crime, one that in many cases calls for capital punishment because it undermines the trust on which society depends. Today, for the first time in history, thanks to artificial intelligence, it is possible for anybody to make counterfeit people who can pass for real in many of the new digital environments we have created. These counterfeit people are the most dangerous artifacts in human history, capable of destroying not just economies but human freedom itself. Before it's too late (it may well be too late already) we must outlaw both the creation of counterfeit people and the "passing along" of counterfeit people. The penalties for either offense should be extremely severe, given that civilization itself is at risk.

The US has charged a former Apple engineer accused of stealing the company's technology on autonomous systems, including self-driving cars, and then fleeing to China. The department of justice on Tuesday announced charges in that case and several others involving the alleged theft of trade secrets and efforts to steal technology to benefit China, Russia and Iran. Two of the cases involved what US officials called procurement networks created to help Russia's military and intelligence services obtain sensitive technology. "We stand vigilant in enforcing US laws to stop the flow of sensitive technologies to our foreign adversaries," Matt Olsen, the head of the justice department's national security division, told reporters. "We are committed to doing all we can to prevent these advanced tools from falling into the hands of foreign adversaries."

Over the past few weeks, there's been some very public hand-wringing about artificial intelligence--a lot of it coming from people who have made A.I. their life's work. Geoffrey Hinton, dubbed the "godfather of A.I.," recently left his job at Google to embark upon a sort of media tour warning about the dangers of the technology. There was a public letter from Elon Musk and others calling for a pause in A.I. development and an essay in Time from theorist Eliezer Yudkowsky saying generative A.I. can harm humanity--or even end it. On Friday's episode of What Next: TBD, I spoke with Meredith Whittaker, president of the Signal Foundation and co-founder of the AI Now Institute at NYU, to sort through the real threat of A.I. and what the doomerism discourse is missing. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. What do you make of the concerns raised by Geoffrey Hinton and others when it comes to A.I. safety?

Sam Altman, the CEO of artificial intelligence lab OpenAI, told a Senate panel he welcomes federal regulation on the technology "to mitigate" its risks. The CEO of the company that delivered ChatGPT to the world said Tuesday he was not interested in becoming the federal government's top regulator of artificial intelligence technology. CEO Sam Altman and other witnesses at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee were asked what they would do to ensure the government has a firm grip on how AI is developed and deployed, and Altman said his first step would be to create a new federal agency. "I would form a new agency that licenses any effort above a certain scale of capabilities and can take that license away and ensure compliance with safety standards," he said in response to a question from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. Sam Altman, CEO and co-founder of OpenAI, speaks during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, May 16, 2023.