As ChatGPT goes viral, generative AI (AIGC, a.k.a AI-generated content) has made headlines everywhere because of its ability to analyze and create text, images, and beyond. With such overwhelming media coverage, it is almost impossible for us to miss the opportunity to glimpse AIGC from a certain angle. In the era of AI transitioning from pure analysis to creation, it is worth noting that ChatGPT, with its most recent language model GPT-4, is just a tool out of numerous AIGC tasks. Impressed by the capability of the ChatGPT, many people are wondering about its limits: can GPT-5 (or other future GPT variants) help ChatGPT unify all AIGC tasks for diversified content creation? Toward answering this question, a comprehensive review of existing AIGC tasks is needed. As such, our work comes to fill this gap promptly by offering a first look at AIGC, ranging from its techniques to applications. Modern generative AI relies on various technical foundations, ranging from model architecture and self-supervised pretraining to generative modeling methods (like GAN and diffusion models). After introducing the fundamental techniques, this work focuses on the technological development of various AIGC tasks based on their output type, including text, images, videos, 3D content, etc., which depicts the full potential of ChatGPT's future. Moreover, we summarize their significant applications in some mainstream industries, such as education and creativity content. Finally, we discuss the challenges currently faced and present an outlook on how generative AI might evolve in the near future.

The last time people were this worked up about chatbots, it was because Microsoft released one that became infamous for turning racist. Back in 2016, Tay seemed to validate skeptics of A.I.-fueled internet buddies--but now, the runaway success of ChatGPT has given A.I. optimists a future to cheer for. Released by OpenAI in November--and souped up just last week with the limited release of its GPT-4 learning model--ChatGPT has left hundreds of millions of users in awe (and fear) of its advanced, automated word-processing capability, which is set to become only more powerful. It really is impressive--and it's also spurring the dumbest tech-industry "arms race" since the pandemic-era crypto boom. There are huge stakes when it comes to A.I. development when it comes to U.S.-China saber-rattling, the business ambitions of Big Tech, and the future of work.

Generative AI can help you write a rap song about your cat Fluffy in the style of Eminem. It can create a portrait of Elon Musk eating Hot Cheetos inside a rocket in space. But, can it do work tasks for us and produce finished products? Professionals across industries are experimenting with AI tools like ChatGPT, which produces conversational text using GPT-3 and GPT-4, and DALL-E, which creates images, to see if they might aid in their work. Creative jobs in industries such as marketing, writing, design and art may use AI to dream up ideas. Retail, sales and real estate sectors are trying to determine whether AI can speed up processes and get their products to market.

An increasingly prevalent problem for intelligent technologies is text safety, as uncontrolled systems may generate recommendations to their users that lead to injury or life-threatening consequences. However, the degree of explicitness of a generated statement that can cause physical harm varies. In this paper, we distinguish types of text that can lead to physical harm and establish one particularly underexplored category: covertly unsafe text. Then, we further break down this category with respect to the system's information and discuss solutions to mitigate the generation of text in each of these subcategories. Ultimately, our work defines the problem of covertly unsafe language that causes physical harm and argues that this subtle yet dangerous issue needs to be prioritized by stakeholders and regulators. We highlight mitigation strategies to inspire future researchers to tackle this challenging problem and help improve safety within smart systems.

AI documentation is a rapidly-growing channel for coordinating the design of AI technologies with policies for transparency and accessibility. Calls to standardize and enact documentation of algorithmic harms and impacts are now commonplace. However, documentation standards for AI remain inchoate, and fail to match the capabilities and social effects of increasingly impactful architectures such as Large Language Models (LLMs). In this paper, we show the limits of present documentation protocols, and argue for dynamic documentation as a new paradigm for understanding and evaluating AI systems. We first review canonical approaches to system documentation outside the context of AI, focusing on the complex history of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). We next compare critical elements of the EIS framework to present challenges with algorithmic documentation, which have inherited the limitations of EISs without incorporating their strengths. These challenges are specifically illustrated through the growing popularity of Model Cards and two case studies of algorithmic impact assessment in China and Canada. Finally, we evaluate more recent proposals, including Reward Reports, as potential components of fully dynamic AI documentation protocols.

Machine unlearning aims to remove points from the training dataset of a machine learning model after training; for example when a user requests their data to be deleted. While many machine unlearning methods have been proposed, none of them enable users to audit the procedure. Furthermore, recent work shows a user is unable to verify if their data was unlearnt from an inspection of the model alone. Rather than reasoning about model parameters, we propose to view verifiable unlearning as a security problem. To this end, we present the first cryptographic definition of verifiable unlearning to formally capture the guarantees of a machine unlearning system. In this framework, the server first computes a proof that the model was trained on a dataset $D$. Given a user data point $d$ requested to be deleted, the server updates the model using an unlearning algorithm. It then provides a proof of the correct execution of unlearning and that $d \notin D'$, where $D'$ is the new training dataset. Our framework is generally applicable to different unlearning techniques that we abstract as admissible functions. We instantiate the framework, based on cryptographic assumptions, using SNARKs and hash chains. Finally, we implement the protocol for three different unlearning techniques (retraining-based, amnesiac, and optimization-based) to validate its feasibility for linear regression, logistic regression, and neural networks.

Counterfactual fairness is an approach to AI fairness that tries to make decisions based on the outcomes that an individual with some kind of sensitive status would have had without this status. This paper proposes Double Machine Learning (DML) Fairness which analogises this problem of counterfactual fairness in regression problems to that of estimating counterfactual outcomes in causal inference under the Potential Outcomes framework. It uses arbitrary machine learning methods to partial out the effect of sensitive variables on nonsensitive variables and outcomes. Assuming that the effects of the two sets of variables are additively separable, outcomes will be approximately equalised and individual-level outcomes will be counterfactually fair. This paper demonstrates the approach in a simulation study pertaining to discrimination in workplace hiring and an application on real data estimating the GPAs of law school students. It then discusses when it is appropriate to apply such a method to problems of real-world discrimination where constructs are conceptually complex and finally, whether DML Fairness can achieve justice in these settings.

As scientific and technological advancements result from human intellectual labor and computational costs, protecting model intellectual property (IP) has become increasingly important to encourage model creators and owners. Model IP protection involves preventing the use of well-trained models on unauthorized domains. To address this issue, we propose a novel approach called Compact Un-Transferable Isolation Domain (CUTI-domain), which acts as a barrier to block illegal transfers from authorized to unauthorized domains. Specifically, CUTI-domain blocks cross-domain transfers by highlighting the private style features of the authorized domain, leading to recognition failure on unauthorized domains with irrelevant private style features. Moreover, we provide two solutions for using CUTI-domain depending on whether the unauthorized domain is known or not: target-specified CUTI-domain and target-free CUTI-domain. Our comprehensive experimental results on four digit datasets, CIFAR10 & STL10, and VisDA-2017 dataset demonstrate that CUTI-domain can be easily implemented as a plug-and-play module with different backbones, providing an efficient solution for model IP protection.

In Part One, the authors addressed the industries most affected by AI, and began the discussion on U.S. federal and state regulations to expect in 2023. Part Two, continues the discussion on potential federal AI regulation and what companies can do to prepare.

Emerging technologies could have profound effects on legal processes, but are the ready for the courtroom?