We introduce Ego4D, a massive-scale egocentric video dataset and benchmark suite. It offers 3,025 hours of daily-life activity video spanning hundreds of scenarios (household, outdoor, workplace, leisure, etc.) captured by 855 unique camera wearers from 74 worldwide locations and 9 different countries. The approach to collection is designed to uphold rigorous privacy and ethics standards with consenting participants and robust de-identification procedures where relevant. Ego4D dramatically expands the volume of diverse egocentric video footage publicly available to the research community. Portions of the video are accompanied by audio, 3D meshes of the environment, eye gaze, stereo, and/or synchronized videos from multiple egocentric cameras at the same event. Furthermore, we present a host of new benchmark challenges centered around understanding the first-person visual experience in the past (querying an episodic memory), present (analyzing hand-object manipulation, audio-visual conversation, and social interactions), and future (forecasting activities). By publicly sharing this massive annotated dataset and benchmark suite, we aim to push the frontier of first-person perception. Project page: https://ego4d-data.org/

Reified Input/Output (I/O) logic[21] has been recently proposed to model real-world norms in terms of the logic in [11]. This is massively grounded on the notion of reification, and it has specifically designed to model meaning of natural language sentences, such as the ones occurring in existing legislation. This paper presents a methodology to carry out compliance checking on reified I/O logic formulae. These are translated in SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) shapes, a recent W3C recommendation to validate and reason with RDF triplestores. Compliance checking is then enforced by validating RDF graphs describing states of affairs with respect to these SHACL shapes.

In many contexts, lying -- the use of verbal falsehoods to deceive -- is harmful. While lying has traditionally been a human affair, AI systems that make sophisticated verbal statements are becoming increasingly prevalent. This raises the question of how we should limit the harm caused by AI "lies" (i.e. falsehoods that are actively selected for). Human truthfulness is governed by social norms and by laws (against defamation, perjury, and fraud). Differences between AI and humans present an opportunity to have more precise standards of truthfulness for AI, and to have these standards rise over time. This could provide significant benefits to public epistemics and the economy, and mitigate risks of worst-case AI futures. Establishing norms or laws of AI truthfulness will require significant work to: (1) identify clear truthfulness standards; (2) create institutions that can judge adherence to those standards; and (3) develop AI systems that are robustly truthful. Our initial proposals for these areas include: (1) a standard of avoiding "negligent falsehoods" (a generalisation of lies that is easier to assess); (2) institutions to evaluate AI systems before and after real-world deployment; and (3) explicitly training AI systems to be truthful via curated datasets and human interaction. A concerning possibility is that evaluation mechanisms for eventual truthfulness standards could be captured by political interests, leading to harmful censorship and propaganda. Avoiding this might take careful attention. And since the scale of AI speech acts might grow dramatically over the coming decades, early truthfulness standards might be particularly important because of the precedents they set.

Abiodun Ogunyemi has been an Uber Eats delivery driver since February 2020. But since March he has been unable to work due to what a union supporting drivers claims is a racially-biased algorithm. Ogunyemi, who is Black, had submitted a photograph of himself to confirm his identity on the app, but when the software failed to recognize him, he was blocked from accessing his account for "improper use of the Uber application." Ogunyemi is one of dozens of Uber drivers who have been prevented from working due to what they say is "racist" facial verification technology. Uber uses Microsoft Face API software on its app to verify drivers' identification, asking drivers to submit new photos on a regular basis.

AI is getting easier for non-experts to use. Some AI services and apps now feature intuitive user interfaces and drag-and-drop functionality--a far cry from hard-core coding. These innovations put powerful capabilities in the hands of companies, and are contributing to the increase in AI pilots and implementations.1 Humans have a knack for using technology for ill, as well as good. This is certainly true of AI. Using open source AI tools, anyone can make "deepfakes"--highly realistic fake images and videos--with a few mouse clicks.

In recent years, art and technology have been merging together. When thinking of art, it's typical to initially think of things like paintings, sculptures or photography. However, technological advancements have resulted in many artists utilizing technology in their work. Patricia Search is a professor in the Communication department at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute as well as the Director, Center for Global Communication and Design. George Grossman, attorney at Grossman & Associates, highlights that "the use of electronic databases in the legal profession will increase the number of research materials available to lawyers by providing access to a larger number of court opinions as well as access to other important references, such as statutory or regulatory material and legal comments about court decisions."

Urban planning designs land-use configurations and can benefit building livable, sustainable, safe communities. Inspired by image generation, deep urban planning aims to leverage deep learning to generate land-use configurations. However, urban planning is a complex process. Existing studies usually ignore the need of personalized human guidance in planning, and spatial hierarchical structure in planning generation. Moreover, the lack of large-scale land-use configuration samples poses a data sparsity challenge. This paper studies a novel deep human guided urban planning method to jointly solve the above challenges. Specifically, we formulate the problem into a deep conditional variational autoencoder based framework. In this framework, we exploit the deep encoder-decoder design to generate land-use configurations. To capture the spatial hierarchy structure of land uses, we enforce the decoder to generate both the coarse-grained layer of functional zones, and the fine-grained layer of POI distributions. To integrate human guidance, we allow humans to describe what they need as texts and use these texts as a model condition input. To mitigate training data sparsity and improve model robustness, we introduce a variational Gaussian embedding mechanism. It not just allows us to better approximate the embedding space distribution of training data and sample a larger population to overcome sparsity, but also adds more probabilistic randomness into the urban planning generation to improve embedding diversity so as to improve robustness. Finally, we present extensive experiments to validate the enhanced performances of our method.

Many legal professionals think that the explosion of information about local, regional, national, and international legislation makes their practice more costly, time-consuming, and even error-prone. The two main reasons for this are that most legislation is usually unstructured, and the tremendous amount and pace with which laws are released causes information overload in their daily tasks. In the case of the legal domain, the research community agrees that a system allowing to generate automatic responses to legal questions could substantially impact many practical implications in daily activities. The degree of usefulness is such that even a semi-automatic solution could significantly help to reduce the workload to be faced. This is mainly because a Question Answering system could be able to automatically process a massive amount of legal resources to answer a question or doubt in seconds, which means that it could save resources in the form of effort, money, and time to many professionals in the legal sector. In this work, we quantitatively and qualitatively survey the solutions that currently exist to meet this challenge.

In a world where seeing is increasingly no longer believing, experts are warning that society must take a multi-pronged approach to combat the potential harms of computer-generated media. As Bill Whitaker reports this week on 60 Minutes, artificial intelligence can manipulate faces and voices to make it look like someone said something they never said. The result is videos of things that never happened, called "deepfakes." Often, they look so real, people watching can't tell. Just this month, Justin Bieber was tricked by a series of deepfake videos on the social media video platform TikTok that appeared to be of Tom Cruise.

Increasingly, companies are using artificial intelligence to invent new methods and products. But can a named inventor be a non-human machine under the law? That depends on which country's laws are being applied. The question of whether a country's Patent Act requires an "inventor" to be a human being is a question of statutory construction. For example, in the U.S. the statute requires an application for patent be made "by the inventor…in writing to the Director."1