On Wednesday, Stability AI announced it would allow artists to remove their work from the training dataset for an upcoming Stable Diffusion 3.0 release. The move comes as an artist advocacy group called Spawning tweeted that Stability AI would honor opt-out requests collected on its Have I Been Trained website. The details of how the plan will be implemented remain incomplete and unclear, however. As a brief recap, Stable Diffusion, an AI image synthesis model, gained its ability to generate images by "learning" from a large dataset of images scraped from the Internet without consulting any rights holders for permission. Some artists are upset about it because Stable Diffusion generates images that can potentially rival human artists in an unlimited quantity.

The hundreds of Russian drones hovering ominously over the Ukrainian battlefield owe their existence to an elastic, sanctions-evading supply chain that often runs through a shabby office above a Hong Kong marketplace, and sometimes through a yellow stucco home in suburban Florida. The "Sea Eagle" Orlan 10 UAV is a deceptive, relatively low-tech and cheap killer that has directed many of the up to 20,000 artillery shells that Russia has fired daily on Ukrainian positions in 2022, killing up to 100 soldiers per day, according to Ukrainian commanders. An investigation by Reuters and iStories, a Russian media outlet, in collaboration with the Royal United Services Institute, a defense think tank in London, has uncovered a logistical trail that spans the globe and ends at the Orlan's production line, the Special Technology Center in St. Petersburg, Russia. This could be due to a conflict with your ad-blocking or security software. Please add japantimes.co.jp and piano.io to your list of allowed sites.

You may have seen some headlines about this wild artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT. We asked it some questions about FCPA compliance to see if it's worth the hype. You might want to be seated for this. ChatGPT was developed by OpenAI, a company founded and funded in part by Elon Musk. Earlier this year, we reviewed a predecessor to ChatGPT called GPT-3.

Art showcase platform ArtStation has provoked further backlash following its response to a protest over AI-generated images. Recent advancements in AI-powered image generators like DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney have raised many societal, legal, and ethical questions. The ability to rapidly create art with just a text prompt is a clear threat to artists that rely on commissions to make a living. In a double blow, art created by human creators is often used – without their permission and/or payment – to train AI models. Seeing AI art being featured on the main page of Artstation saddens me.

End-to-End speech-to-speech translation (S2ST) is generally evaluated with text-based metrics. This means that generated speech has to be automatically transcribed, making the evaluation dependent on the availability and quality of automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems. In this paper, we propose a text-free evaluation metric for end-to-end S2ST, named BLASER, to avoid the dependency on ASR systems. BLASER leverages a multilingual multimodal encoder to directly encode the speech segments for source input, translation output and reference into a shared embedding space and computes a score of the translation quality that can be used as a proxy to human evaluation. To evaluate our approach, we construct training and evaluation sets from more than 40k human annotations covering seven language directions. The best results of BLASER are achieved by training with supervision from human rating scores. We show that when evaluated at the sentence level, BLASER correlates significantly better with human judgment compared to ASR-dependent metrics including ASR-SENTBLEU in all translation directions and ASR-COMET in five of them. Our analysis shows combining speech and text as inputs to BLASER does not increase the correlation with human scores, but best correlations are achieved when using speech, which motivates the goal of our research. Moreover, we show that using ASR for references is detrimental for text-based metrics.

Knowledge representation and reasoning in law are essential to facilitate the automation of legal analysis and decision-making tasks. In this paper, we propose a new approach based on legal science, specifically legal taxonomy, for representing and reasoning with legal documents. Our approach interprets the regulations in legal documents as binary trees, which facilitates legal reasoning systems to make decisions and resolve logical contradictions. The advantages of this approach are twofold. First, legal reasoning can be performed on the basis of the binary tree representation of the regulations. Second, the binary tree representation of the regulations is more understandable than the existing sentence-based representations. We provide an example of how our approach can be used to interpret the regulations in a legal document.

Disagreements are frequently studied from the perspective of either detecting toxicity or analysing argument structure. We propose a framework of dispute tactics that unifies these two perspectives, as well as other dialogue acts which play a role in resolving disputes, such as asking questions and providing clarification. This framework includes a preferential ordering among rebuttal-type tactics, ranging from ad hominem attacks to refuting the central argument. Using this framework, we annotate 213 disagreements (3,865 utterances) from Wikipedia Talk pages. This allows us to investigate research questions around the tactics used in disagreements; for instance, we provide empirical validation of the approach to disagreement recommended by Wikipedia. We develop models for multilabel prediction of dispute tactics in an utterance, achieving the best performance with a transformer-based label powerset model. Adding an auxiliary task to incorporate the ordering of rebuttal tactics further yields a statistically significant increase. Finally, we show that these annotations can be used to provide useful additional signals to improve performance on the task of predicting escalation.

Counterfactual explanations have emerged as a popular solution for the eXplainable AI (XAI) problem of elucidating the predictions of black-box deep-learning systems due to their psychological validity, flexibility across problem domains and proposed legal compliance. While over 100 counterfactual methods exist, claiming to generate plausible explanations akin to those preferred by people, few have actually been tested on users ($\sim7\%$). So, the psychological validity of these counterfactual algorithms for effective XAI for image data is not established. This issue is addressed here using a novel methodology that (i) gathers ground truth human-generated counterfactual explanations for misclassified images, in two user studies and, then, (ii) compares these human-generated ground-truth explanations to computationally-generated explanations for the same misclassifications. Results indicate that humans do not "minimally edit" images when generating counterfactual explanations. Instead, they make larger, "meaningful" edits that better approximate prototypes in the counterfactual class.

With the rise of AI and automation, moral decisions are being put into the hands of algorithms that were formerly the preserve of humans. In autonomous driving, a variety of such decisions with ethical implications are made by algorithms for behavior and trajectory planning. Therefore, we present an ethical trajectory planning algorithm with a framework that aims at a fair distribution of risk among road users. Our implementation incorporates a combination of five essential ethical principles: minimization of the overall risk, priority for the worst-off, equal treatment of people, responsibility, and maximum acceptable risk. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first ethical algorithm for trajectory planning of autonomous vehicles in line with the 20 recommendations from the EU Commission expert group and with general applicability to various traffic situations. We showcase the ethical behavior of our algorithm in selected scenarios and provide an empirical analysis of the ethical principles in 2000 scenarios. The code used in this research is available as open-source software.

Machine learning models are increasingly deployed for critical decision-making tasks, making it important to verify that they do not contain gender or racial biases picked up from training data. Typical approaches to achieve fairness revolve around efforts to clean or curate training data, with post-hoc statistical evaluation of the fairness of the model on evaluation data. In contrast, we propose techniques to \emph{prove} fairness using recently developed formal methods that verify properties of neural network models.Beyond the strength of guarantee implied by a formal proof, our methods have the advantage that we do not need explicit training or evaluation data (which is often proprietary) in order to analyze a given trained model. In experiments on two familiar datasets in the fairness literature (COMPAS and ADULTS), we show that through proper training, we can reduce unfairness by an average of 65.4\% at a cost of less than 1\% in AUC score.