Chatbots could take over eight million jobs in the UK - and women will be worst affected, a leading think tank has warned. Analysis has found nearly two-thirds of tasks carried out by workers could be automated by AI, with admin and entry-level jobs most at risk. But the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) claims the'jobs apocalypse' is not inevitable if the Government acts fast to ensure humans are not replaced. With the right regulation and fiscal incentives, it has estimated AI could instead boost the UK economy by 306bn - and even increase salaries for some by over a third. The report is the first of its kind to look at the impact of generative AI - the technology that mimics the human brain in generating text, images, and videos from scratch - on the UK labour market.

When the board of OpenAI staged a bum mutiny last November, throwing out the company's leadership only to have the bosses return while board members were pressured to resign, something seemed rotten in the state of effective altruism. Nominally, OpenAI's mission had been to ensure that AI "benefits all of humanity." Fiduciarily, OpenAI's mission is to benefit the subset of humanity with a stake in OpenAI. And then, of course, there was Sam Bankman-Fried, the felonious altruist who argued in court last fall that his sordid crypto exchange was in fact a noble exercise in earning-to-give--making Midas money, sure, but only to funnel it to the global poor. This week he's facing a prison sentence of up to 50 years, which his legal team has complained paints him as a "depraved super-villain."

Almost 8 million UK jobs could be lost to artificial intelligence in a "jobs apocalypse", according to a report warning that women, younger workers and those on lower wages are at most risk from automation. The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that entry level, part-time and administrative jobs were most exposed to being replaced by AI under a "worst-case scenario" for the rollout of new technologies in the next three to five years. The thinktank warned that the UK was facing a "sliding doors" moment as growing numbers of companies adopt generative AI technologies – which can read and create text, data and software code – to automate everyday workplace tasks. The report said this first wave of AI adoption was already putting jobs at risk as growing numbers of companies introduce the technology. However, a second wave could lead to the automation of more jobs amid rapid advances in AI.

Collecting relevant judgments for legal case retrieval is a challenging and time-consuming task. Accurately judging the relevance between two legal cases requires a considerable effort to read the lengthy text and a high level of domain expertise to extract Legal Facts and make juridical judgments. With the advent of advanced large language models, some recent studies have suggested that it is promising to use LLMs for relevance judgment. Nonetheless, the method of employing a general large language model for reliable relevance judgments in legal case retrieval is yet to be thoroughly explored. To fill this research gap, we devise a novel few-shot workflow tailored to the relevant judgment of legal cases. The proposed workflow breaks down the annotation process into a series of stages, imitating the process employed by human annotators and enabling a flexible integration of expert reasoning to enhance the accuracy of relevance judgments. By comparing the relevance judgments of LLMs and human experts, we empirically show that we can obtain reliable relevance judgments with the proposed workflow. Furthermore, we demonstrate the capacity to augment existing legal case retrieval models through the synthesis of data generated by the large language model.

Recent research demonstrates the effectiveness of using pre-trained language models for legal case retrieval. Most of the existing works focus on improving the representation ability for the contextualized embedding of the [CLS] token and calculate relevance using textual semantic similarity. However, in the legal domain, textual semantic similarity does not always imply that the cases are relevant enough. Instead, relevance in legal cases primarily depends on the similarity of key facts that impact the final judgment. Without proper treatments, the discriminative ability of learned representations could be limited since legal cases are lengthy and contain numerous non-key facts. To this end, we introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. The basic idea involves pinpointing key facts in legal cases and pulling the contextualized embedding of the [CLS] token closer to the key facts while pushing away from the non-key facts, which can warm up the case embedding space in an unsupervised manner. To be specific, this study brings the word alignment mechanism to the contextual masked auto-encoder. First, we leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Second, we employ the deep decoder to enable translation between different structures, with the goal of pinpointing key facts to enhance discriminative ability. Comprehensive experiments conducted on publicly available legal benchmarks show that our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval. It provides a new perspective on the in-depth understanding and processing of legal case documents.

This study explores the distinctions between neural machine translation (NMT) and human translation (HT) through the lens of translation relations. It benchmarks HT to assess the translation techniques produced by an NMT system and aims to address three key research questions: the differences in overall translation relations between NMT and HT, how each utilizes non-literal translation techniques, and the variations in factors influencing their use of specific non-literal techniques. The research employs two parallel corpora, each spanning nine genres with the same source texts with one translated by NMT and the other by humans. Translation relations in these corpora are manually annotated on aligned pairs, enabling a comparative analysis that draws on linguistic insights, including semantic and syntactic nuances such as hypernyms and alterations in part-of-speech tagging. The results indicate that NMT relies on literal translation significantly more than HT across genres. While NMT performs comparably to HT in employing syntactic non-literal translation techniques, it falls behind in semantic-level performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4 are versatile and capable of addressing a diverse range of tasks. However, general LLMs, which are developed on open-domain data, may lack the domain-specific knowledge essential for tasks in vertical domains, such as legal, medical, etc. To address this issue, previous approaches either conduct continuous pre-training with domain-specific data or employ retrieval augmentation to support general LLMs. Unfortunately, these strategies are either cost-intensive or unreliable in practical applications. To this end, we present a novel framework named BLADE, which enhances Black-box LArge language models with small Domain-spEcific models. BLADE consists of a black-box LLM and a small domain-specific LM. The small LM preserves domain-specific knowledge and offers specialized insights, while the general LLM contributes robust language comprehension and reasoning capabilities. Specifically, our method involves three steps: 1) pre-training the small LM with domain-specific data, 2) fine-tuning this model using knowledge instruction data, and 3) joint Bayesian optimization of the general LLM and the small LM. Extensive experiments conducted on public legal and medical benchmarks reveal that BLADE significantly outperforms existing approaches. This shows the potential of BLADE as an effective and cost-efficient solution in adapting general LLMs for vertical domains.

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), aligning LLMs with human values and societal norms to ensure their reliability and safety has become crucial. Reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI (CAI) have been proposed for LLM alignment. However, these methods require either heavy human annotations or explicitly pre-defined constitutions, which are labor-intensive and resource-consuming. To overcome these drawbacks, we study constitution-based LLM alignment and propose a data-driven constitution discovery and self-alignment framework called IterAlign. IterAlign leverages red teaming to unveil the weaknesses of an LLM and automatically discovers new constitutions using a stronger LLM. These constitutions are then used to guide self-correction of the base LLM. Such a constitution discovery pipeline can be run iteratively and automatically to discover new constitutions that specifically target the alignment gaps in the current LLM. Empirical results on several safety benchmark datasets and multiple base LLMs show that IterAlign successfully improves truthfulness, helpfulness, harmlessness and honesty, improving the LLM alignment by up to $13.5\%$ in harmlessness.

We propose to measure political bias in LLMs by analyzing both the content and style of their generated content regarding political issues. Existing benchmarks and measures focus on gender and racial biases. However, political bias exists in LLMs and can lead to polarization and other harms in downstream applications. In order to provide transparency to users, we advocate that there should be fine-grained and explainable measures of political biases generated by LLMs. Our proposed measure looks at different political issues such as reproductive rights and climate change, at both the content (the substance of the generation) and the style (the lexical polarity) of such bias. We measured the political bias in eleven open-sourced LLMs and showed that our proposed framework is easily scalable to other topics and is explainable.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is emerging as a flexible and robust technique to adapt models to private users data without training, to handle credit attribution, and to allow efficient machine unlearning at scale. However, RAG techniques for image generation may lead to parts of the retrieved samples being copied in the model's output. To reduce risks of leaking private information contained in the retrieved set, we introduce Copy-Protected generation with Retrieval (CPR), a new method for RAG with strong copyright protection guarantees in a mixed-private setting for diffusion models.CPR allows to condition the output of diffusion models on a set of retrieved images, while also guaranteeing that unique identifiable information about those example is not exposed in the generated outputs. In particular, it does so by sampling from a mixture of public (safe) distribution and private (user) distribution by merging their diffusion scores at inference. We prove that CPR satisfies Near Access Freeness (NAF) which bounds the amount of information an attacker may be able to extract from the generated images. We provide two algorithms for copyright protection, CPR-KL and CPR-Choose. Unlike previously proposed rejection-sampling-based NAF methods, our methods enable efficient copyright-protected sampling with a single run of backward diffusion. We show that our method can be applied to any pre-trained conditional diffusion model, such as Stable Diffusion or unCLIP. In particular, we empirically show that applying CPR on top of unCLIP improves quality and text-to-image alignment of the generated results (81.4 to 83.17 on TIFA benchmark), while enabling credit attribution, copy-right protection, and deterministic, constant time, unlearning.