Quantum computing is an emerging field recognized for the significant speedup it offers over classical computing through quantum algorithms. However, designing and implementing quantum algorithms pose challenges due to the complex nature of quantum mechanics and the necessity for precise control over quantum states. Despite the significant advancements in AI, there has been a lack of datasets specifically tailored for this purpose. In this work, we introduce QCircuitNet, the first benchmark and test dataset designed to evaluate AI's capability in designing and implementing quantum algorithms in the form of quantum circuit codes. Unlike using AI for writing traditional codes, this task is fundamentally different and significantly more complicated due to highly flexible design space and intricate manipulation of qubits. Our key contributions include: 1. A general framework which formulates the key features of quantum algorithm design task for Large Language Models. 2. Implementation for a wide range of quantum algorithms from basic primitives to advanced applications, with easy extension to more quantum algorithms. 3. Automatic validation and verification functions, allowing for iterative evaluation and interactive reasoning without human inspection. 4. Promising potential as a training dataset through primitive fine-tuning results. We observed several interesting experimental phenomena: fine-tuning does not always outperform few-shot learning, and LLMs tend to exhibit consistent error patterns. QCircuitNet provides a comprehensive benchmark for AI-driven quantum algorithm design, offering advantages in model evaluation and improvement, while also revealing some limitations of LLMs in this domain.

The EU's Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is a significant step towards responsible AI development, but lacks clear technical interpretation, making it difficult to assess models' compliance. This work presents COMPL-AI, a comprehensive framework consisting of (i) the first technical interpretation of the EU AI Act, translating its broad regulatory requirements into measurable technical requirements, with the focus on large language models (LLMs), and (ii) an open-source Act-centered benchmarking suite, based on thorough surveying and implementation of state-of-the-art LLM benchmarks. By evaluating 12 prominent LLMs in the context of COMPL-AI, we reveal shortcomings in existing models and benchmarks, particularly in areas like robustness, safety, diversity, and fairness. This work highlights the need for a shift in focus towards these aspects, encouraging balanced development of LLMs and more comprehensive regulation-aligned benchmarks. Simultaneously, COMPL-AI for the first time demonstrates the possibilities and difficulties of bringing the Act's obligations to a more concrete, technical level. As such, our work can serve as a useful first step towards having actionable recommendations for model providers, and contributes to ongoing efforts of the EU to enable application of the Act, such as the drafting of the GPAI Code of Practice.

It has recently been discovered that the conclusions of many highly influential econometrics studies can be overturned by removing a very small fraction of their samples (often less than $0.5\%$). These conclusions are typically based on the results of one or more Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regressions, raising the question: given a dataset, can we certify the robustness of an OLS fit on this dataset to the removal of a given number of samples? Brute-force techniques quickly break down even on small datasets. Existing approaches which go beyond brute force either can only find candidate small subsets to remove (but cannot certify their non-existence) [BGM20, KZC21], are computationally intractable beyond low dimensional settings [MR22], or require very strong assumptions on the data distribution and too many samples to give reasonable bounds in practice [BP21, FH23]. We present an efficient algorithm for certifying the robustness of linear regressions to removals of samples. We implement our algorithm and run it on several landmark econometrics datasets with hundreds of dimensions and tens of thousands of samples, giving the first non-trivial certificates of robustness to sample removal for datasets of dimension $4$ or greater. We prove that under distributional assumptions on a dataset, the bounds produced by our algorithm are tight up to a $1 + o(1)$ multiplicative factor.

The detection of hate speech or toxic content online is a complex and sensitive issue. While the identification itself is highly dependent on the context of the situation, sensitive personal attributes such as age, language, and nationality are rarely available due to privacy concerns. Additionally, platforms struggle with a wide range of local jurisdictions regarding online hate speech and the evaluation of content based on their internal ethical norms. This research presents a novel approach that demonstrates a GDPR-compliant application capable of implementing legal and ethical reasoning into the content moderation process. The application increases the explainability of moderation decisions by utilizing user information. Two use cases fundamental to online communication are presented and implemented using technologies such as GPT-3.5, Solid Pods, and the rule language Prova. The first use case demonstrates the scenario of a platform aiming to protect adolescents from potentially harmful content by limiting the ability to post certain content when minors are present. The second use case aims to identify and counter problematic statements online by providing counter hate speech. The counter hate speech is generated using personal attributes to appeal to the user. This research lays the groundwork for future DSA compliance of online platforms. The work proposes a novel approach to reason within different legal and ethical definitions of hate speech and plan the fitting counter hate speech. Overall, the platform provides a fitted protection to users and a more explainable and individualized response. The hate speech detection service, the chat platform, and the reasoning in Prova are discussed, and the potential benefits for content moderation and algorithmic hate speech detection are outlined. A selection of important aspects for DSA compliance is outlined.

The United States Department of Justice's proposed remedies to break up Google's search dominance could weaken its main profit engine and stall its advances in artificial intelligence, even though a final outcome may be years away, analysts say. The Justice Department said on Tuesday it may ask a judge to force Google to divest parts of its business, such as its Chrome browser and Android operating system, that the Alphabet-owned company used to maintain an illegal monopoly in online search. It is only one of the many potential fixes prosecutors are considering. Barring Google from collecting sensitive user data, requiring it to make search results and indexes available to rivals, letting websites opt out of their content being used to train AI products and making Google report to a "court-appointed technical committee" are also on the table. The remedies strike at the heart of the internet empire that has made Google synonymous with search and can reduce its revenue while giving its rivals more room to grow.

As autonomous systems rapidly become ubiquitous, there is a growing need for a legal and regulatory framework toaddress when and how such a system harms someone. There have been several attempts within the philosophy literature to define harm, but none of them has proven capable of dealing with with the many examples that have been presented, leading some to suggest that the notion of harm should be abandoned and replaced by more well-behaved notions''. As harm is generally something that is caused, most of these definitions have involved causality at some level. Yet surprisingly, none of them makes use of causal models and the definitions of actual causality that they can express. In this paper we formally define a qualitative notion of harm that uses causal models and is based on a well-known definition of actual causality (Halpern, 2016).

Associative memories in the brain receive and store patterns of activity registered by the sensory neurons, and are able to retrieve them when necessary. Due to their importance in human intelligence, computational models of associative memories have been developed for several decades now. In this paper, we present a novel neural model for realizing associative memories, which is based on a hierarchical generative network that receives external stimuli via sensory neurons. It is trained using predictive coding, an error-based learning algorithm inspired by information processing in the cortex. To test the model's capabilities, we perform multiple retrieval experiments from both corrupted and incomplete data points. In an extensive comparison, we show that this new model outperforms in retrieval accuracy and robustness popular associative memory models, such as autoencoders trained via backpropagation, and modern Hopfield networks.

Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior: At each time, the algorithm observes an action chosen by a fallible agent, and decides whether to accept that agent's decision, intervene with an alternative, or request the expert's opinion. For instance, in clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances, thus real-world decision support is often limited to monitoring and forecasting. Instead, such an intermediary would strike a prudent balance between the former (purely prescriptive) and latter (purely descriptive) approaches, while providing an efficient interface between human mistakes and expert feedback. In this work, we first formalize the sequential problem of online decision mediation---that is, of simultaneously learning and evaluating mediator policies from scratch with abstentive feedback: In each round, deferring to the oracle obviates the risk of error, but incurs an upfront penalty, and reveals the otherwise hidden expert action as a new training data point. Second, we motivate and propose a solution that seeks to trade off (immediate) loss terms against (future) improvements in generalization error; in doing so, we identify why conventional bandit algorithms may fail.

A large amount of recent research has the far-reaching goal of finding training methods for deep neural networks that can serve as alternatives to backpropagation (BP). A prominent example is predictive coding (PC), which is a neuroscience-inspired method that performs inference on hierarchical Gaussian generative models. These methods, however, fail to keep up with modern neural networks, as they are unable to replicate the dynamics of complex layers and activation functions. In this work, we solve this problem by generalizing PC to arbitrary probability distributions, enabling the training of architectures, such as transformers, that are hard to approximate with only Gaussian assumptions. We perform three experimental analyses.

Google may have to break off parts of its business, such as Chrome and Android, and share users' search data with its competitors, based on the proposed remedies the US Justice Department has submitted in a court filing. The DOJ said it's "considering behavioral and structural remedies that would prevent Google from using products such as Chrome, Play, and Android to advantage Google search and Google search-related products and features" after Judge Amit Mehta ruled in August that it illegally abused its monopoly over the search industry. That ruling was the result of a 2020 antitrust lawsuit filed by the DOJ and several states, accusing Google of "unlawfully maintaining monopolies" over search and search-related products. The department is also considering limiting or prohibiting Google from signing contracts with other companies to make its search engine the default option for their browsers and phones. In his ruling, Judge Mehta said that paying Mozilla, Apple, Samsung and other device makers to make Google as their default search engine was an illegal act meant to maintain its dominant position in the market. A Google executive previously revealed during a trial for the lawsuit that the the company paid Apple 26 billion.