We propose a conceptualization and implementation of AI ethics via the capability approach. We aim to show that conceptualizing AI ethics through the capability approach has two main advantages for AI ethics as a discipline. First, it helps clarify the ethical dimension of AI tools. Second, it provides guidance to implementing ethical considerations within the design of AI tools. We illustrate these advantages in the context of AI tools in medicine, by showing how ethics-based auditing of AI tools in medicine can greatly benefit from our capability-based approach.

From a simple text prompt, generative-AI image models can create stunningly realistic and creative images bounded, it seems, by only our imagination. These models have achieved this remarkable feat thanks, in part, to the ingestion of billions of images collected from nearly every corner of the internet. Many creators have understandably expressed concern over how their intellectual property has been ingested without their permission or a mechanism to opt out of training. As a result, questions of fair use and copyright infringement have quickly emerged. We describe a method that allows us to determine if a model was trained on a specific image or set of images. This method is computationally efficient and assumes no explicit knowledge of the model architecture or weights (so-called black-box membership inference). We anticipate that this method will be crucial for auditing existing models and, looking ahead, ensuring the fairer development and deployment of generative AI models.

Background: Deception detection through analysing language is a promising avenue using both human judgments and automated machine learning judgments. For both forms of credibility assessment, automated adversarial attacks that rewrite deceptive statements to appear truthful pose a serious threat. Methods: We used a dataset of 243 truthful and 262 fabricated autobiographical stories in a deception detection task for humans and machine learning models. A large language model was tasked to rewrite deceptive statements so that they appear truthful. In Study 1, humans who made a deception judgment or used the detailedness heuristic and two machine learning models (a fine-tuned language model and a simple n-gram model) judged original or adversarial modifications of deceptive statements. In Study 2, we manipulated the target alignment of the modifications, i.e. tailoring the attack to whether the statements would be assessed by humans or computer models. Results: When adversarial modifications were aligned with their target, human (d=-0.07 and d=-0.04) and machine judgments (51% accuracy) dropped to the chance level. When the attack was not aligned with the target, both human heuristics judgments (d=0.30 and d=0.36) and machine learning predictions (63-78%) were significantly better than chance. Conclusions: Easily accessible language models can effectively help anyone fake deception detection efforts both by humans and machine learning models. Robustness against adversarial modifications for humans and machines depends on that target alignment. We close with suggestions on advancing deception research with adversarial attack designs.

With the rapid pace of technological innovation, traditional methods of policy formation and legislating are becoming conspicuously anachronistic. The need for regulatory choices to be made to counter the deadening effect of regulatory lag is more important to developing markets and fostering growth than achieving one off regulatory perfection. This article advances scholarship on innovation policy and the regulation of technological innovation in the European Union. It does so by considering what building an agile yet robust anticipatory governance regulatory culture involves. It systematically excavates a variety of tools and elements that are being put into use in inventive ways and argues that these need to be more cohesively and systemically integrated into the regulatory toolbox. Approaches covered include strategic foresight, the critical embrace of iterative policy development and regulatory learning in the face of uncertainty and the embrace of bottom up approaches to cocreation of policy such as Policy Labs and the testing and regulatory learning through pilot regulation and experimentation. The growing use of regulatory sandboxes as an EU policy tool to boost innovation and navigate regulatory complexity as seen in the EU AI Act is also probed

Ensuring ethical behavior in Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems amidst their increasing ubiquity and influence is a major concern the world over. The use of formal methods in AI ethics is a possible crucial approach for specifying and verifying the ethical behavior of AI systems. This paper proposes a formalization based on deontic logic to define and evaluate the ethical behavior of AI systems, focusing on system-level specifications, contributing to this important goal. It introduces axioms and theorems to capture ethical requirements related to fairness and explainability. The formalization incorporates temporal operators to reason about the ethical behavior of AI systems over time. The authors evaluate the effectiveness of this formalization by assessing the ethics of the real-world COMPAS and loan prediction AI systems. Various ethical properties of the COMPAS and loan prediction systems are encoded using deontic logical formulas, allowing the use of an automated theorem prover to verify whether these systems satisfy the defined properties. The formal verification reveals that both systems fail to fulfill certain key ethical properties related to fairness and non-discrimination, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed formalization in identifying potential ethical issues in real-world AI applications.

Advancements in NLP research have been greatly Given all these elements, the information propelled by large language models (LLMs), which on particular details about how to formalize an have showcased exceptional abilities (Zhao et al., effective human-model cooperation to achieve 2023; Laskar et al., 2024). These advancements are collective outputs is rather under-specified and paving the way for the development of AI models scattered. Therefore, a comprehensive and systematic that can behave as autonomous agents, working analysis of the underlying principles and alongside humans to tackle intricate tasks. These formalizations of human-model cooperation is still models, for example, can cooperate with humans absent. This gap in understanding presents a significant on data annotation (Klie et al., 2020; Li et al., opportunity for advancement, enabling us 2023a; Huang et al., 2024c), information seeking to develop a deeper understanding of the fundamental (Deng et al., 2023a; Wang et al., 2023b; Zhang basics that govern the effective cooperation et al., 2024d), creative writing (Padmakumar and between humans and intelligent models. He, 2022; Akoury et al., 2020) and real-world problem To fill this gap, in this survey, we take the first solving (Mehta et al., 2023; Feng et al., 2024; step to summarize the principles, formalizations, Qian et al., 2024).

Context. The security of critical infrastructure has been a pressing concern since the advent of computers and has become even more critical in today's era of cyber warfare. Protecting mission-critical systems (MCSs), essential for national security, requires swift and robust governance, yet recent events reveal the increasing difficulty of meeting these challenges. Aim. Building on prior research showcasing the potential of Generative AI (GAI), such as Large Language Models, in enhancing risk analysis, we aim to explore practitioners' views on integrating GAI into the governance of IT MCSs. Our goal is to provide actionable insights and recommendations for stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Method. We designed a survey to collect practical experiences, concerns, and expectations of practitioners who develop and implement security solutions in the context of MCSs. Conclusions and Future Works. Our findings highlight that the safe use of LLMs in MCS governance requires interdisciplinary collaboration. Researchers should focus on designing regulation-oriented models and focus on accountability; practitioners emphasize data protection and transparency, while policymakers must establish a unified AI framework with global benchmarks to ensure ethical and secure LLMs-based MCS governance.

The advancements in generative AI inevitably raise concerns about their risks and safety implications, which, in return, catalyzes significant progress in AI safety. However, as this field continues to evolve, a critical question arises: are our current efforts on AI safety aligned with the advancements of AI as well as the long-term goal of human civilization? This paper presents a blueprint for an advanced human society and leverages this vision to guide current AI safety efforts. It outlines a future where the Internet of Everything becomes reality, and creates a roadmap of significant technological advancements towards this envisioned future. For each stage of the advancements, this paper forecasts potential AI safety issues that humanity may face. By projecting current efforts against this blueprint, this paper examines the alignment between the current efforts and the long-term needs, and highlights unique challenges and missions that demand increasing attention from AI safety practitioners in the 2020s. This vision paper aims to offer a broader perspective on AI safety, emphasizing that our current efforts should not only address immediate concerns but also anticipate potential risks in the expanding AI landscape, thereby promoting a safe and sustainable future of AI and human civilization.

Against the company's wishes, a court unredacted information alleging that Meta used Library Genesis (LibGen), a notorious so-called shadow library of pirated books that originated in Russia, to help train its generative AI language models. Its outcome, along with those of dozens of similar cases working their way through courts in the United States, will determine whether technology companies can legally use creative works to train AI moving forward and could either entrench AI's most powerful players or derail them. Vince Chhabria, a judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered both Meta and the plaintiffs on Wednesday to file full versions of a batch of documents after calling Meta's approach to redacting them "preposterous," adding that, for the most part, "there is not a single thing in those briefs that should be sealed." Chhabria ruled that Meta was not pushing to redact the materials in order to protect its business interests but instead to "avoid negative publicity." The documents were originally filed late last year but remained publicly unavailable until now.

Would you trust an artificial intelligence software to make a diagnosis for you? Most people would answer negatively to this question. Indeed, despite the significant advancements of AI and neural networks, their "black box" nature is a significant barrier to our trust. The inability to understand how or why a model arrives at its conclusions leaves many skeptical about its use, particularly in sensitive areas like healthcare, finance, or legal systems. This is where Explainable AI (XAI) comes into play, a research area focused on interpreting AI models' predictions.