Bluesky, which has surged in the days following the US election, said on Friday that it won't train on its users' posts for generative AI. The declaration stands in stark contrast to the AI training policies of X (Twitter) and Meta's Threads. Probably not coincidentally, Bluesky's announcement came the same day X's new terms of service, allowing third-party partners to train on user posts, went into effect. "A number of artists and creators have made their home on Bluesky, and we hear their concerns with other platforms training on their data," Bluesky posted (via The Verge) on Friday. "We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so."

Elon Musk has expanded his lawsuit against the ChatGPT maker OpenAI, adding federal antitrust and other claims and adding OpenAI's largest financial backer, Microsoft, as a defendant. Musk's amended lawsuit, filed on Thursday night in federal court in Oakland, California, said Microsoft and OpenAI illegally sought to monopolize the market for generative artificial intelligence and sideline competitors. Like Musk's original August complaint, it accused OpenAI and its chief executive, Samuel Altman, of violating contract provisions by putting profits ahead of the public good in the push to advance AI. "Never before has a corporation gone from tax-exempt charity to a 157bn for-profit, market-paralyzing gorgon – and in just eight years," the complaint said. It seeks to void OpenAI's license with Microsoft and force them to divest "ill-gotten" gains. OpenAI in a statement said the latest lawsuit "is even more baseless and overreaching than the previous ones".

OpenAI was founded in 2015 with the aim of building an artificial general intelligence (AGI) - generally taken to mean AI that can perform any task a human being is capable of. In 2019, the firm announced a new "capped profit" structure allowing it to raise money. Microsoft made an initial 1bn investment into OpenAI shortly thereafter - increasing this to a multi-year, multi-billion dollar partnership in 2023. The lawsuit also accuses boss Sam Altman - a named defendant in the lawsuit - of "rampant self-dealing". Mr Musk's initial legal action filed in March argued the agreement had transformed it into "a closed-source de facto subsidiary" of the PC giant.

Elon Musk has amended his lawsuit against OpenAI, adding more anti-trust claims against the company and including Microsoft as a defendant. He also added his company, xAI, as well as Shivon Zilis, a former OpenAI board member and mother to three of his children, as plaintiffs. Musk originally sued OpenAI in March, accusing founders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman of violating the organization's non-profit mission by teaming up with Microsoft. He withdrew the state court lawsuit in June before suing OpenAI and Altman again in federal court. Musk was one OpenAI's earliest backers, and one of his arguments was that he was "betrayed by Mr. Altman and his accomplices."

Artificial Intelligence is rapidly embedding itself within militaries, economies, and societies, reshaping their very foundations. Given the depth and breadth of its consequences, it has never been more pressing to understand how to ensure that AI systems are safe, ethical, and have a positive societal impact. This book aims to provide a comprehensive approach to understanding AI risk. Our primary goals include consolidating fragmented knowledge on AI risk, increasing the precision of core ideas, and reducing barriers to entry by making content simpler and more comprehensible. The book has been designed to be accessible to readers from diverse backgrounds. You do not need to have studied AI, philosophy, or other such topics. The content is skimmable and somewhat modular, so that you can choose which chapters to read. We introduce mathematical formulas in a few places to specify claims more precisely, but readers should be able to understand the main points without these.

As the boundaries of human computer interaction expand, Generative AI emerges as a key driver in reshaping user interfaces, introducing new possibilities for personalized, multimodal and cross-platform interactions. This integration reflects a growing demand for more adaptive and intuitive user interfaces that can accommodate diverse input types such as text, voice and video, and deliver seamless experiences across devices. This paper explores the integration of generative AI in modern user interfaces, examining historical developments and focusing on multimodal interaction, cross-platform adaptability and dynamic personalization. A central theme is the interface dilemma, which addresses the challenge of designing effective interactions for multimodal large language models, assessing the trade-offs between graphical, voice-based and immersive interfaces. The paper further evaluates lightweight frameworks tailored for mobile platforms, spotlighting the role of mobile hardware in enabling scalable multimodal AI. Technical and ethical challenges, including context retention, privacy concerns and balancing cloud and on-device processing are thoroughly examined. Finally, the paper outlines future directions such as emotionally adaptive interfaces, predictive AI driven user interfaces and real-time collaborative systems, underscoring generative AI's potential to redefine adaptive user-centric interfaces across platforms.

The demands for accurate and representative generative AI systems means there is an increased demand on participatory evaluation structures. While these participatory structures are paramount to to ensure non-dominant values, knowledge and material culture are also reflected in AI models and the media they generate, we argue that dominant structures of community participation in AI development and evaluation are not explicit enough about the benefits and harms that members of socially marginalized groups may experience as a result of their participation. Without explicit interrogation of these benefits by AI developers, as a community we may remain blind to the immensity of systemic change that is needed as well. To support this provocation, we present a speculative case study, developed from our own collective experiences as AI researchers. We use this speculative context to itemize the barriers that need to be overcome in order for the proposed benefits to marginalized communities to be realized, and harms mitigated.

This paper explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) can automate consensus-seeking in supply chain management (SCM), where frequent decisions on problems such as inventory levels and delivery times require coordination among companies. Traditional SCM relies on human consensus in decision-making to avoid emergent problems like the bullwhip effect. Some routine consensus processes, especially those that are time-intensive and costly, can be automated. Existing solutions for automated coordination have faced challenges due to high entry barriers locking out SMEs, limited capabilities, and limited adaptability in complex scenarios. However, recent advances in Generative AI, particularly LLMs, show promise in overcoming these barriers. LLMs, trained on vast datasets can negotiate, reason, and plan, facilitating near-human-level consensus at scale with minimal entry barriers. In this work, we identify key limitations in existing approaches and propose autonomous LLM agents to address these gaps. We introduce a series of novel, supply chain-specific consensus-seeking frameworks tailored for LLM agents and validate the effectiveness of our approach through a case study in inventory management. To accelerate progress within the SCM community, we open-source our code, providing a foundation for further advancements in LLM-powered autonomous supply chain solutions.

The past few years have witnessed an unprecedented improvement in the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), driven by the success in scaling up autoregressive language modeling in terms of data, model size, and the amount of compute used for training (Kaplan et al., 2020). LLMs have demonstrated exceptional linguistic abilities (Brown, 2020; Achiam et al., 2023), general tool use (Schick et al., 2024; Cai et al., 2023), and commonsense reasoning (Wei et al., 2022; OpenAI, 2024), among other impressive capabilities. The success of LLMs as general-purpose assistants motivates research and development to extend instruction-tuning to the vision-language multimodal space (Liu et al., 2023; Gemini Team, 2023). These vision-language multimodal models, which can process and generate both text and images, also achieve human-expert performance on a wide range of tasks, such as (document) visual question answering (Antol et al., 2015; Mathew et al., 2021), image captioning (Lin et al., 2014), and image-text retrieval (Plummer et al., 2015). While these vision-language multimodal models hold tremendous promise for many applications, they should be used along with proper system guardrails to ensure safe and responsible deployment, because they can generate or propagate harmful content when interacting with online users. However, most existing guardrails (Inan et al., 2023; Llama Team, 2024b,a; Yuan et al., 2024; Ghosh et al., 2024) for the interaction (e.g., conversation) between humans and AI agents are text-only: conversation data involving other modalities, such as images, cannot be used as inputs for such guardrails. This calls for a safeguard tool for classifying safety risks in prompts and responses for conversations with multimodal contents involved. In this work, we introduce Llama Guard 3 Vision, a multimodal LLM-based safeguard for human-AI conversations that involves image understanding: it can be used to safeguard content for both mutimodal LLM inputs (prompt classification) and mutimodal LLM responses (response classification). Unlike text-only Llama Guard versions (Inan et al., 2023; Llama Team, 2024b,a), it is specifically designed to support image reasoning use cases and is optimized to detect harmful multimodal (text and image) prompts and text responses to these prompts.

There is an urgent need to identify both short and long-term risks from newly emerging types of Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well as available risk management measures. In response, and to support global efforts in regulating AI and writing safety standards, we compile an extensive catalog of risk sources and risk management measures for general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems, complete with descriptions and supporting examples where relevant. This work involves identifying technical, operational, and societal risks across model development, training, and deployment stages, as well as surveying established and experimental methods for managing these risks. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first of its kind to provide extensive documentation of both GPAI risk sources and risk management measures that are descriptive, self-contained and neutral with respect to any existing regulatory framework. This work intends to help AI providers, standards experts, researchers, policymakers, and regulators in identifying and mitigating systemic risks from GPAI systems. For this reason, the catalog is released under a public domain license for ease of direct use by stakeholders in AI governance and standards.