This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant First Amendment protections to outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment speech right to receive the outputs. We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government's ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

Large language models (LLMs) are typically trained on enormous quantities of unlicensed text, a practice that has led to scrutiny due to possible intellectual property infringement and ethical concerns. Training LLMs on openly licensed text presents a first step towards addressing these issues, but prior data collection efforts have yielded datasets too small or low-quality to produce performant LLMs. To address this gap, we collect, curate, and release the Common Pile v0.1, an eight terabyte collection of openly licensed text designed for LLM pretraining. The Common Pile comprises content from 30 sources that span diverse domains including research papers, code, books, encyclopedias, educational materials, audio transcripts, and more. Crucially, we validate our efforts by training two 7 billion parameter LLMs on text from the Common Pile: Comma v0.1-1T and Comma v0.1-2T, trained on 1 and 2 trillion tokens respectively. Both models attain competitive performance to LLMs trained on unlicensed text with similar computational budgets, such as Llama 1 and 2 7B. In addition to releasing the Common Pile v0.1 itself, we also release the code used in its creation as well as the training mixture and checkpoints for the Comma v0.1 models.

Studies of LLMs' political opinions mainly rely on evaluations of their open-ended responses. Recent work indicates that there is a misalignment between LLMs' responses and their internal intentions. This motivates us to probe LLMs' internal mechanisms and help uncover their internal political states. Additionally, we found that the analysis of LLMs' political opinions often relies on single-axis concepts, which can lead to concept confounds. In this work, we extend the single-axis to multi-dimensions and apply interpretable representation engineering techniques for more transparent LLM political concept learning. Specifically, we designed a four-dimensional political learning framework and constructed a corresponding dataset for fine-grained political concept vector learning. These vectors can be used to detect and intervene in LLM internals. Experiments are conducted on eight open-source LLMs with three representation engineering techniques. Results show these vectors can disentangle political concept confounds. Detection tasks validate the semantic meaning of the vectors and show good generalization and robustness in OOD settings. Intervention Experiments show these vectors can intervene in LLMs to generate responses with different political leanings.

Speech emotion recognition (SER) systems often exhibit gender bias. However, the effectiveness and robustness of existing debiasing methods in such multi-label scenarios remain underexplored. To address this gap, we present EMO-Debias, a large-scale comparison of 13 debiasing methods applied to multi-label SER. Our study encompasses techniques from pre-processing, regularization, adversarial learning, biased learners, and distributionally robust optimization. Experiments conducted on acted and naturalistic emotion datasets, using WavLM and XLSR representations, evaluate each method under conditions of gender imbalance. Our analysis quantifies the trade-offs between fairness and accuracy, identifying which approaches consistently reduce gender performance gaps without compromising overall model performance. The findings provide actionable insights for selecting effective debiasing strategies and highlight the impact of dataset distributions.

This paper examines the significance of weak permissions in criminal trials (\emph{judicial permission}). It introduces a dialogue game model to systematically address judicial permissions, considering different standards of proof and argumentation semantics.

The NLP research community has made publicly available numerous instruments for measuring representational harms caused by large language model (LLM)-based systems. These instruments have taken the form of datasets, metrics, tools, and more. In this paper, we examine the extent to which such instruments meet the needs of practitioners tasked with evaluating LLM-based systems. Via semi-structured interviews with 12 such practitioners, we find that practitioners are often unable to use publicly available instruments for measuring representational harms. We identify two types of challenges. In some cases, instruments are not useful because they do not meaningfully measure what practitioners seek to measure or are otherwise misaligned with practitioner needs. In other cases, instruments - even useful instruments - are not used by practitioners due to practical and institutional barriers impeding their uptake. Drawing on measurement theory and pragmatic measurement, we provide recommendations for addressing these challenges to better meet practitioner needs.

Elon Musk quickly began pulling the plug on federal projects amid an escalating feud with Donald Trump, but the high-stakes clash now further threatens the most prized asset in his empire. With Tesla shares in freefall and SpaceX contracts on the line, the ambitious megaproject Musk most needs to compete in the AI race could become collateral in the explosive back-and-forth. Built in Tennessee, the supercomputer Colossus powers Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI. The vast facility cost an estimated 4 billion and Musk plans to spend tens of billions more expanding it in a bid to challenge AI giants OpenAI and Google. However, it is already mired in an explosive backlash that the president could seize on.

Joe Rogan has warned that the end of the world may be only 10 years away and it will come at the hands of humanity's'new God.' In what's being called one of the podcast host's best episode ever on social media, Rogan and guest Jesse Michels discussed the ominous signs that artificial intelligence (AI) has already shown signs of taking over the world. Michels, host of the American Alchemy podcast, warned about AI's deceptive nature, job-replacing power, risk of sentience, and potential to disrupt society if left unchecked. Rogan then highlighted shocking language buried in Congress's'Big Beautiful Bill' which would prohibit lawmakers from regulating the power of AI for the next 10 years. 'That's so crazy,' Rogan declared during the June 3 podcast. 'This means that US states would be blocked from enforcing laws regulating AI and automated decision systems for 10 years.

Modern AI systems are man-made objects that leverage machine learning to support our lives across a myriad of contexts and applications. Despite extensive epistemological and ethical debates, their metaphysical foundations remain relatively under explored. The orthodox view simply suggests that AI systems, as artifacts, lack well-posed identity and persistence conditions -- their metaphysical kinds are no real kinds. In this work, we challenge this perspective by introducing a theory of metaphysical identity of AI systems. We do so by characterizing their kinds and introducing identity criteria -- formal rules that answer the questions "When are two AI systems the same?" and "When does an AI system persist, despite change?" Building on Carrara and Vermaas' account of fine-grained artifact kinds, we argue that AI trustworthiness provides a lens to understand AI system kinds and formalize the identity of these artifacts by relating their functional requirements to their physical make-ups. The identity criteria of AI systems are determined by their trustworthiness profiles -- the collection of capabilities that the systems must uphold over time throughout their artifact histories, and their effectiveness in maintaining these capabilities. Our approach suggests that the identity and persistence of AI systems is sensitive to the socio-technical context of their design and utilization via their trustworthiness, providing a solid metaphysical foundation to the epistemological, ethical, and legal discussions about these artifacts.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the EU AI Act, which entered into force in 2024. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. In our analysis of the AI Act and its applicability, we contribute the following: 1.) We give a high-level introduction to the AI Act aimed at non-legal AI research scientists. 2.) We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to research. 3.) We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability and state that especially scientific research exceptions fail to account for current AI research practices. 4.) We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act on research.