GPT-2 was a great success. OpenAI didn't want to publish the most enormous and mightiest version, with 1.5B parameters. At least, claiming that they were afraid of misusing it for less ethical purposes. Lately, they claimed that they didn't found shreds of evidence of such. All of this is legit, considering the volume of the false "news" generated using it. And the truth is that it can be very successful in developing false news/stories.

Data science and artificial intelligence can help prevent outbreaks COVID-19?

Now the filmmaker's imagination of technology that impressed us with a vehicle that listens to our command turns out to be the car we longed for! The latest version from the MG stable could take us to the experience of that.

We present an overview of the second edition of the CheckThat! Lab at CLEF 2019. The lab featured two tasks in two different languages: English and Arabic. Task 1 (English) challenged the participating systems to predict which claims in a political debate or speech should be prioritized for fact-checking. Task 2 (Arabic) asked to (A) rank a given set of Web pages with respect to a check-worthy claim based on their usefulness for fact-checking that claim, (B) classify these same Web pages according to their degree of usefulness for fact-checking the target claim, (C) identify useful passages from these pages, and (D) use the useful pages to predict the claim's factuality. CheckThat! provided a full evaluation framework, consisting of data in English (derived from fact-checking sources) and Arabic (gathered and annotated from scratch) and evaluation based on mean average precision (MAP) and normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG) for ranking, and F1 for classification. A total of 47 teams registered to participate in this lab, and fourteen of them actually submitted runs (compared to nine last year). The evaluation results show that the most successful approaches to Task 1 used various neural networks and logistic regression. As for Task 2, learning-to-rank was used by the highest scoring runs for subtask A, while different classifiers were used in the other subtasks. We release to the research community all datasets from the lab as well as the evaluation scripts, which should enable further research in the important tasks of check-worthiness estimation and automatic claim verification.

The rampant adoption of ML methodologies has revealed that models are usually adopted to make decisions without taking into account the uncertainties in their predictions. More critically, they can be vulnerable to adversarial examples. Thus, we believe that developing ML systems that take into account predictive uncertainties and are robust against adversarial examples is a must for critical, real-world tasks. We start with a case study in retailing. We propose a robust implementation of the Nerlove-Arrow model using a Bayesian structural time series model. Its Bayesian nature facilitates incorporating prior information reflecting the manager's views, which can be updated with relevant data. However, this case adopted classical Bayesian techniques, such as the Gibbs sampler. Nowadays, the ML landscape is pervaded with neural networks and this chapter also surveys current developments in this sub-field. Then, we tackle the problem of scaling Bayesian inference to complex models and large data regimes. In the first part, we propose a unifying view of two different Bayesian inference algorithms, Stochastic Gradient Markov Chain Monte Carlo (SG-MCMC) and Stein Variational Gradient Descent (SVGD), leading to improved and efficient novel sampling schemes. In the second part, we develop a framework to boost the efficiency of Bayesian inference in probabilistic models by embedding a Markov chain sampler within a variational posterior approximation. After that, we present an alternative perspective on adversarial classification based on adversarial risk analysis, and leveraging the scalable Bayesian approaches from chapter 2. In chapter 4 we turn to reinforcement learning, introducing Threatened Markov Decision Processes, showing the benefits of accounting for adversaries in RL while the agent learns.

Though recent end-to-end neural models have shown promising progress on Conversational Recommender System (CRS), two key challenges still remain. First, the recommended items cannot be always incorporated into the generated replies precisely and appropriately. Second, only the items mentioned in the training corpus have a chance to be recommended in the conversation. To tackle these challenges, we introduce a novel framework called NTRD for recommender dialogue system that decouples the dialogue generation from the item recommendation. NTRD has two key components, i.e., response template generator and item selector. The former adopts an encoder-decoder model to generate a response template with slot locations tied to target items, while the latter fills in slot locations with the proper items using a sufficient attention mechanism. Our approach combines the strengths of both classical slot filling approaches (that are generally controllable) and modern neural NLG approaches (that are generally more natural and accurate). Extensive experiments on the benchmark ReDial show our NTRD significantly outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods. Besides, our approach has the unique advantage to produce novel items that do not appear in the training set of dialogue corpus. The code is available at \url{https://github.com/jokieleung/NTRD}.

Tired of all those "JOIN" in SQL? Did you have a headache every time you need to modify a schema in a relational database? If either answer is "Yes", then you should give graph database such as Neo4j a try. Nodes are connected via edges and they both have properties. We can retrieve and aggregate data with queries. Because their logics and semantics are closer to the way that our minds model the real world, graph databases are easy to learn.

Jacob Steinhardt (Google Scholar) (Website) is an assistant professor at UC Berkeley. His main research interest is in designing machine learning systems that are reliable and aligned with human values. Some of his specific research directions include robustness, rewards specification and reward hacking, as well as scalable alignment. His most recent paper at ICLR 2021 proposes a new test to measure an NLP model's accuracy on a wide variety of tasks, ranging from mathematics, US history, law, and more. It provides a measurement tool to help researchers specify an important problem: while current models can achieve superhuman performance on benchmarks, they lack the ability to understand language on a whole. Another of Jacob's papers at ICLR focuses on measuring a language model's knowledge of basic concepts of morality. It shows that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements. "Test accuracy is a very limited metric." "You might not be able to get lots of feedback on human values." Below are the show notes and full transcript. As always, please feel free to reach out with feedback, ideas, and questions! I think it required me to learn to become a significantly better writer. And I think that helped later on, because it made me feel more comfortable pursuing unusual ideas. I knew I had the skills to present those ideas. As long as I believed in them, I could get other people to believe in them." You just want this very diverse distribution of things that are deeply ingrained in evolutionary history as opposed to being part of explicit reasoning" First of all, test accuracy is a very limited metric. What are we trying to do with it? For a while, there was a lot of climate skepticism or climate denial. At some point it becomes pretty clear, when there's regular heat waves fires and that sort of thing. You probably wanted to do something about it before that point. Having these more subtle measurements that you can look at are important. And the other thing is I think it actually laid the groundwork for the more extreme weather events to become a convincing signal. Jacob Steinhardt: Another thing that I'm interested in is just measuring the progress in capabilities, getting different AI capabilities seems important. Vision tasks just seem to be falling like flies. I don't know if there's any vision tasks that's survived for more than a year and a few tasks seem a little bit better, but I think those are also starting to fall like flies. I know we've come up with a few harder tasks. ML Systems are still not very good at math. Humans also aren't very good at math, but also not good at law it turns out.

When people first get into contact with artificial intelligence, they tend to focus on algorithms. How they recognize pictures of cats and dogs, learn to play chess, or compose music and write poetry amaze people because it feels like magic. There are many kinds of algorithms, but most newsworthy milestones are generated by just one type -- that the media loves so much -- neural networks. People care about what deep neural networks are capable of, but they forget these "black-box" models are nothing more than empty casings without the large datasets that train them into becoming powerful predictors and classifiers. Practice makes perfect and it's no different for deep neural nets.

Machine learning can pinpoint "genes of importance" that help crops to grow with less fertilizer, according to a new study published in Nature …