A new scale of humiliation ritual kicked off this week as Elon Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI went to trial in Silicon Valley. The Tesla CEO, who co-founded OpenAI, is suing the artificial intelligence firm and two of its other co-founders, Sam Altman and Greg Brockman, for diverting from its original nonprofit goal of developing A.I. for the public good in favor of for-profit motives. "This lawsuit is very simple: It is not OK to steal a charity," Musk said on the witness stand on Tuesday. The trial is big by every conceivable measure. Both Musk and OpenAI have mustered high-dollar legal armies who are prepared to wage potentially years of litigation, including this federal trial.

In this episode of “Uncanny Valley,” we get into how the Elon Musk-Sam Altman trial goes way beyond their rivalry and could have major implications both for OpenAI and also the AI industry at large.

Elon Musk Seemingly Admits xAI Has Used OpenAI's Models to Train Its Own While answering questions under oath, Musk argued it's standard practice for AI labs to use their competitors' models. While testifying on Thursday in federal court, Elon Musk seemed to indicate that his AI lab may have used OpenAI's models to train xAI's own. He touched upon the topic while sitting on the witness stand answering cross-examination questions from an OpenAI attorney amid his ongoing legal battle against the ChatGPT-maker . Do you know what distillation is? It means to use one AI model to train another AI model.

OpenAI desires less regulation, but it still doesn't know how its chatbot works. Get your news from a source that's not owned and controlled by oligarchs. OpenAI admitted it had to develop a specific instruction in the code of its latest model of ChatGPT to stop it from repeatedly referencing "goblins, gremlins, and other creatures." In an explanation posted Wednesday, the company said the "strange habit" came from its chatbot personality feature --specifically for users who chose the "Nerdy" personality. You are an unapologetically nerdy, playful and wise AI mentor to a human.

Figure 4: Impact of the proportion of injected noise for learning Paragraph Embeddings on XSum dataset. PPLint and the PPL of the generation obtained from training PLANNER on the corresponding z at different noise level. We observed when the value of p is within (0, 0.7), there Performing a grid search on each task using diffusion models is an expensive process. However, it has been observed that an increase in the value of p leads to a deviation between the two. This could be attributed to a higher conversion error that occurs when p is excessively large. A.2 Selection of number of latent code k The parameter k determines the number of latent codes used to represent a paragraph and therefore controls the compression level. Latent codes with smaller values of k are easier to model using the diffusion model, but may struggle to accurately preserve all the information in the original text. Additionally, smaller values of k offer computational efficiency as the sequence length for the diffusion model is k. To determine the best set of latent codes, we conducted experiments using three different methods: 1) selecting the first k hidden vectors, 2) selecting the last k hidden vectors, and 3) selecting interleaving hidden vectors, one for every L k hidden vectors. The results of the ablation study are presented in Table 5. Based on our findings, we observed no significant difference among the different choices, so we opted for option 1). Furthermore, we discovered that increasing the value of k does not lead to a dramatic improvement in performance. To balance between efficiency and performance, in most of our study we only use k =16 Setup BLEU_clean BLEU_robust First k (k=16) 79.59 43.17 A.3 Reconstruction, denoising and interpolation examples In Table 6, we present examples that demonstrate the adeptness of the trained Variational Paragraph Embedder in providing clean and denoised reconstructions. Additionally, we showcase interpolation results (Table 7, 8) derived from two random sentences in the hotel review dataset. The interpolated paragraph is usually coherent and incorporates inputs from both sentences, characterizing the distributional smoothness of the latent space. Reconstructed text complaints: after two nights stay, i asked the maid to clean our room (empty the wastebasket & make the bed). Denoising reconstruction (hotel review), noise level 0.3 Original text * * * check out the bathroom picture * * * i was in nyc by myself to watch some friends participate in the us olympic marathon trials. Corrupted text * * [unused697] check exams the bathroom picture * * slams i was in nyc mead myself yankee 2016 some scotch ruin in the outfielder olympicnca trials.

Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable.

Generating video stories from text prompts is a complex task. In addition to having high visual quality, videos need to realistically adhere to a sequence of text prompts whilst being consistent throughout the frames. Creating a benchmark for video generation requires data annotated over time, which contrasts with the single caption used often in video datasets. To fill this gap, we collect comprehensive human annotations on three existing datasets, and introduce StoryBench: a new, challenging multi-task benchmark to reliably evaluate forthcoming text-to-video models. Our benchmark includes three video generation tasks of increasing difficulty: action execution, where the next action must be generated starting from a conditioning video; story continuation, where a sequence of actions must be executed starting from a conditioning video; and story generation, where a video must be generated from only text prompts. We evaluate small yet strong text-to-video baselines, and show the benefits of training on story-like data algorithmically generated from existing video captions. Finally, we establish guidelines for human evaluation of video stories, and reaffirm the need of better automatic metrics for video generation. StoryBench aims at encouraging future research efforts in this exciting new area. Work completed during an internship at Google.

The following section is answers to questions listed in datasheets for datasets. A.1 Motivation For what purpose was the dataset created? VisAlign is created to serve as a benchmark for measuring visual perception alignment between AI models and humans. Who created the dataset (e.g., which team, research group) and on behalf of which entity (e.g., company, institution, organization)? Who funded the creation of the dataset? If there is an associated grant, please provide the name of the grantor and the grant name and number. This work was supported by Institute of Information & Communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant (No.2019-0-00075, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program(KAIST)) and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant (NRF2020H1D3A2A03100945), funded by the Korea government (MSIT). A.2 Composition What do the instances that comprise the dataset represent (e.g., documents, photos, people, countries)? VisAlign contains eight different types of images and their corresponding gold human labels. How many instances are there in total (of each type, if appropriate)? There are a total of 12500 images in the train set, distributed equally among the 10 classes. The open test set and the closed test each contain 900 images: 100 images each in Categories 1 to 7 and 200 images in Category 8. Does the dataset contain all possible instances or is it a sample (not necessarily random) of instances from a larger set?

AI alignment refers to models acting towards human-intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. In this paper, we focus on the models' visual perception alignment with humans, further referred to as AI-human visual alignment. Specifically, we propose a new dataset for measuring AI-human visual alignment in terms of image classification. In order to evaluate AI-human visual alignment, a dataset should encompass samples with various scenarios and have gold human perception labels. Our dataset consists of three groups of samples, namely Must-Act (i.e., Must-Classify), Must-Abstain, and Uncertain, and further divided into eight categories. All samples have a gold human perception label; even Uncertain (e.g., severely blurry) sample labels were obtained via crowd-sourcing. The validity of our dataset is verified by sampling theory, statistical theories related to survey design, and experts in the related fields. Using our dataset, we analyze the visual alignment and reliability of five popular visual perception models and eight abstention methods.