Oasis, a Torrance-based private cloud and infrastructure solutions provider, has partnered with Reveal-Brainspace, which makes AI-powered e-discovery software. E-discover is a form of digital investigation that attempts to find evidence in email, business communications and other data that could be used in litigation or criminal proceedings. Reveal-Brainspace will be available in Oasis' suite of technology, a collection of e-discovery tools. Oasis builds and manages private clouds that integrate network infrastructure, cyber security and disaster recovery. "We look forward to working with Oasis to integrate our comprehensive AI-powered e-discovery solutions into their robust tech stack," Wendell Jisa, founder and chief executive of Reveal-Brainspace, said in a release.

We have talked about chatbots on several occasions in the past. Most of those targeted legal consumers. Today, we'll have a look at how a chatbot could benefit your law firm. Let's start by defining what a chatbot is. A chatbot is a computer program designed to mimic human conversation.

ChatGPT is an advanced artificial intelligence program that promises to revolutionize the legal profession. Developed by OpenAI, this cutting-edge technology utilizes natural language processing models to generate human-like text, solve complex coding issues and provide valuable insights into large data sets. The potential applications of this technology are limitless and have the potential to greatly improve the efficiency and accuracy of legal work, while also creating new problems that require thoughtful solutions.

As noted in the filing, Microsoft and GitHub say the complaint "fails on two intrinsic defects: lack of injury and lack of an otherwise viable claim," while OpenAI similarly says the plaintiffs "allege a grab bag of claims that fail to plead violations of cognizable legal rights." The companies argue that the plaintiffs rely on "hypothetical events" to make their claim, and say they don't describe how they were personally harmed by the tool.

Algorithmic decision making driven by neural networks has become very prominent in applications that directly affect people's quality of life. In this paper, we study the problem of verifying, training, and guaranteeing individual fairness of neural network models. A popular approach for enforcing fairness is to translate a fairness notion into constraints over the parameters of the model. However, such a translation does not always guarantee fair predictions of the trained neural network model. To address this challenge, we develop a counterexample-guided post-processing technique to provably enforce fairness constraints at prediction time. Contrary to prior work that enforces fairness only on points around test or train data, we are able to enforce and guarantee fairness on all points in the input domain. Additionally, we propose an in-processing technique to use fairness as an inductive bias by iteratively incorporating fairness counterexamples in the learning process. We have implemented these techniques in a tool called FETA. Empirical evaluation on real-world datasets indicates that FETA is not only able to guarantee fairness on-the-fly at prediction time but also is able to train accurate models exhibiting a much higher degree of individual fairness.

Image diffusion models such as DALL-E 2, Imagen, and Stable Diffusion have attracted significant attention due to their ability to generate high-quality synthetic images. In this work, we show that diffusion models memorize individual images from their training data and emit them at generation time. With a generate-and-filter pipeline, we extract over a thousand training examples from state-of-the-art models, ranging from photographs of individual people to trademarked company logos. We also train hundreds of diffusion models in various settings to analyze how different modeling and data decisions affect privacy. Overall, our results show that diffusion models are much less private than prior generative models such as GANs, and that mitigating these vulnerabilities may require new advances in privacy-preserving training.

Modern data aggregation often takes the form of a platform collecting data from a network of users. More than ever, these users are now requesting that the data they provide is protected with a guarantee of privacy. This has led to the study of optimal data acquisition frameworks, where the optimality criterion is typically the maximization of utility for the agent trying to acquire the data. This involves determining how to allocate payments to users for the purchase of their data at various privacy levels. The main goal of this paper is to characterize a fair amount to pay users for their data at a given privacy level. We propose an axiomatic definition of fairness, analogous to the celebrated Shapley value. Two concepts for fairness are introduced. The first treats the platform and users as members of a common coalition and provides a complete description of how to divide the utility among the platform and users. In the second concept, fairness is defined only among users, leading to a potential fairness-constrained mechanism design problem for the platform. We consider explicit examples involving private heterogeneous data and show how these notions of fairness can be applied. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first fairness concepts for data that explicitly consider privacy constraints.

While human evaluation remains best practice for accurately judging the faithfulness of automatically-generated summaries, few solutions exist to address the increased difficulty and workload when evaluating long-form summaries. Through a survey of 162 papers on long-form summarization, we first shed light on current human evaluation practices surrounding long-form summaries. We find that 73% of these papers do not perform any human evaluation on model-generated summaries, while other works face new difficulties that manifest when dealing with long documents (e.g., low inter-annotator agreement). Motivated by our survey, we present LongEval, a set of guidelines for human evaluation of faithfulness in long-form summaries that addresses the following challenges: (1) How can we achieve high inter-annotator agreement on faithfulness scores? (2) How can we minimize annotator workload while maintaining accurate faithfulness scores? and (3) Do humans benefit from automated alignment between summary and source snippets? We deploy LongEval in annotation studies on two long-form summarization datasets in different domains (SQuALITY and PubMed), and we find that switching to a finer granularity of judgment (e.g., clause-level) reduces inter-annotator variance in faithfulness scores (e.g., std-dev from 18.5 to 6.8). We also show that scores from a partial annotation of fine-grained units highly correlates with scores from a full annotation workload (0.89 Kendall's tau using 50% judgments). We release our human judgments, annotation templates, and our software as a Python library for future research.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

The sentence is a fundamental unit in many NLP applications. Sentence segmentation is widely used as the first preprocessing task, where an input text is split into consecutive sentences considering the end of the sentence (EOS) as their boundaries. This task formulation relies on a strong assumption that the input text consists only of sentences, or what we call the sentential units (SUs). However, real-world texts often contain non-sentential units (NSUs) such as metadata, sentence fragments, nonlinguistic markers, etc. which are unreasonable or undesirable to be treated as a part of an SU. To tackle this issue, we formulate a novel task of sentence identification, where the goal is to identify SUs while excluding NSUs in a given text. To conduct sentence identification, we propose a simple yet effective method which combines the beginning of the sentence (BOS) and EOS labels to determine the most probable SUs and NSUs based on dynamic programming. To evaluate this task, we design an automatic, language-independent procedure to convert the Universal Dependencies corpora into sentence identification benchmarks. Finally, our experiments on the sentence identification task demonstrate that our proposed method generally outperforms sentence segmentation baselines which only utilize EOS labels.