The rise of billion-parameter diffusion models like Stable Diffusion XL, Imagen, and Dall-E3 markedly advances the field of generative AI. However, their large-scale nature poses challenges in fine-tuning and deployment due to high resource demands and slow inference speed. This paper ventures into the relatively unexplored yet promising realm of fine-tuning quantized diffusion models. We establish a strong baseline by customizing three models: PEQA for fine-tuning quantization parameters, Q-Diffusion for post-training quantization, and DreamBooth for personalization. Our analysis reveals a notable trade-off between subject and prompt fidelity within the baseline model. To address these issues, we introduce two strategies, inspired by the distinct roles of different timesteps in diffusion models: S1 optimizing a single set of fine-tuning parameters exclusively at selected intervals, and S2 creating multiple fine-tuning parameter sets, each specialized for different timestep intervals. Our approach not only enhances personalization but also upholds prompt fidelity and image quality, significantly outperforming the baseline qualitatively and quantitatively. The code will be made publicly available.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has intensified the imperative to scrutinize fairness alongside accuracy. Recent studies have begun to investigate fairness evaluations for LLMs within domains such as recommendations. Given that personalization is an intrinsic aspect of recommendation systems, its incorporation into fairness assessments is paramount. Yet, the degree to which current fairness evaluation frameworks account for personalization remains unclear. Our comprehensive literature review aims to fill this gap by examining how existing frameworks handle fairness evaluations of LLMs, with a focus on the integration of personalization factors. Despite an exhaustive collection and analysis of relevant works, we discovered that most evaluations overlook personalization, a critical facet of recommendation systems, thereby inadvertently perpetuating unfair practices. Our findings shed light on this oversight and underscore the urgent need for more nuanced fairness evaluations that acknowledge personalization. Such improvements are vital for fostering equitable development within the AI community.

Generative AI and transfer learning fields have experienced remarkable advancements in recent years especially in the domain of Natural Language Processing (NLP). Transformers were at the heart of these advancements where the cutting-edge transformer-based Language Models (LMs) enabled new state-of-the-art results in a wide spectrum of applications. While the number of research works involving neural LMs is exponentially increasing, their vast majority are high-level and far from self-contained. Consequently, a deep understanding of the literature in this area is a tough task especially at the absence of a unified mathematical framework explaining the main types of neural LMs. We address the aforementioned problem in this tutorial where the objective is to explain neural LMs in a detailed, simplified and unambiguous mathematical framework accompanied with clear graphical illustrations. Concrete examples on widely used models like BERT and GPT2 are explored. Finally, since transformers pretrained on language-modeling-like tasks have been widely adopted in computer vision and time series applications, we briefly explore some examples of such solutions in order to enable readers understand how transformers work in the aforementioned domains and compare this use with the original one in NLP.

Educators are increasingly concerned about the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT in programming education, particularly regarding the potential exploitation of imperfections in Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) Detectors for academic misconduct. In this paper, we present an empirical study where the LLM is examined for its attempts to bypass detection by AIGC Detectors. This is achieved by generating code in response to a given question using different variants. We collected a dataset comprising 5,069 samples, with each sample consisting of a textual description of a coding problem and its corresponding human-written Python solution codes. These samples were obtained from various sources, including 80 from Quescol, 3,264 from Kaggle, and 1,725 from LeetCode. From the dataset, we created 13 sets of code problem variant prompts, which were used to instruct ChatGPT to generate the outputs. Subsequently, we assessed the performance of five AIGC detectors. Our results demonstrate that existing AIGC Detectors perform poorly in distinguishing between human-written code and AI-generated code.

Instruction tuning has emerged as a promising approach to enhancing large language models in following human instructions. It is shown that increasing the diversity and number of instructions in the training data can consistently enhance generalization performance, which facilitates a recent endeavor to collect various instructions and integrate existing instruction tuning datasets into larger collections. However, different users have their unique ways of expressing instructions, and there often exist variations across different datasets in the instruction styles and formats, i.e., format inconsistency. In this work, we propose a framework named Unified Instruction Tuning (UIT), which calls OpenAI APIs for automatic format transfer among different instruction tuning datasets such as PromptSource, FLAN and CrossFit. With the framework, we (1) demonstrate the necessity of maintaining format consistency in instruction tuning; (2) improve the generalization performance on unseen instructions on T5-LM-xl; (3) provide a novel perplexity-based denoising method to reduce the noise of automatic format transfer to make the UIT framework more practical and a smaller offline model based on GPT-J that achieves comparable format transfer capability to OpenAI APIs to reduce costs in practice. Further analysis regarding variations of targeted formats and other effects is intended.

This study aimed to examine an assumption that generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools can overcome the cognitive intensity that humans suffer when solving problems. We compared the performance of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on 2019 NAEP science assessments with students by cognitive demands of the items. Fifty-four tasks were coded by experts using a two-dimensional cognitive load framework, including task cognitive complexity and dimensionality. ChatGPT and GPT-4 responses were scored using the scoring keys of NAEP. The analysis of the available data was based on the average student ability scores for students who answered each item correctly and the percentage of students who responded to individual items. Results showed that both ChatGPT and GPT-4 consistently outperformed most students who answered the NAEP science assessments. As the cognitive demand for NAEP tasks increases, statistically higher average student ability scores are required to correctly address the questions. This pattern was observed for students in grades 4, 8, and 12, respectively. However, ChatGPT and GPT-4 were not statistically sensitive to the increase in cognitive demands of the tasks, except for Grade 4. As the first study focusing on comparing GAI and K-12 students in problem-solving in science, this finding implies the need for changes to educational objectives to prepare students with competence to work with GAI tools in the future. Education ought to emphasize the cultivation of advanced cognitive skills rather than depending solely on tasks that demand cognitive intensity. This approach would foster critical thinking, analytical skills, and the application of knowledge in novel contexts. Findings also suggest the need for innovative assessment practices by moving away from cognitive intensity tasks toward creativity and analytical skills to avoid the negative effects of GAI on testing more efficiently.

Governments are increasingly considering integrating autonomous AI agents in high-stakes military and foreign-policy decision-making, especially with the emergence of advanced generative AI models like GPT-4. Our work aims to scrutinize the behavior of multiple AI agents in simulated wargames, specifically focusing on their predilection to take escalatory actions that may exacerbate multilateral conflicts. Drawing on political science and international relations literature about escalation dynamics, we design a novel wargame simulation and scoring framework to assess the escalation risks of actions taken by these agents in different scenarios. Contrary to prior studies, our research provides both qualitative and quantitative insights and focuses on large language models (LLMs). We find that all five studied off-the-shelf LLMs show forms of escalation and difficult-to-predict escalation patterns. We observe that models tend to develop arms-race dynamics, leading to greater conflict, and in rare cases, even to the deployment of nuclear weapons. Qualitatively, we also collect the models' reported reasonings for chosen actions and observe worrying justifications based on deterrence and first-strike tactics. Given the high stakes of military and foreign-policy contexts, we recommend further examination and cautious consideration before deploying autonomous language model agents for strategic military or diplomatic decision-making.

In November, a group of non-fiction authors filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of using other people's intellectual property without permission to train the former's generative AI technology. Now, more non-fiction writers are suing the companies for using their work to train OpenAI's GPT large language models (LLM). Professional writers "have limited capital to fund their research" and "typically self-fund their projects," they said in their complaint. The plaintiffs added that the companies could've explored alternative financing options, such as profit sharing, but have "decided to steal" instead. They're seeking up to $150,000 per infringed work in damages, as well as a permanent injunction "to prevent these harms from recurring."

Full-waveform inversion (FWI) plays a vital role in geoscience to explore the subsurface. It utilizes the seismic wave to image the subsurface velocity map. As the machine learning (ML) technique evolves, the data-driven approaches using ML for FWI tasks have emerged, offering enhanced accuracy and reduced computational cost compared to traditional physics-based methods. However, a common challenge in geoscience, the unprivileged data, severely limits ML effectiveness. The issue becomes even worse during model pruning, a step essential in geoscience due to environmental complexities. To tackle this, we introduce the EdGeo toolkit, which employs a diffusion-based model guided by physics principles to generate high-fidelity velocity maps. The toolkit uses the acoustic wave equation to generate corresponding seismic waveform data, facilitating the fine-tuning of pruned ML models. Our results demonstrate significant improvements in SSIM scores and reduction in both MAE and MSE across various pruning ratios. Notably, the ML model fine-tuned using data generated by EdGeo yields superior quality of velocity maps, especially in representing unprivileged features, outperforming other existing methods.

Research suggests that tutors should adopt a strategic approach when addressing math errors made by low-efficacy students. Rather than drawing direct attention to the error, tutors should guide the students to identify and correct their mistakes on their own. While tutor lessons have introduced this pedagogical skill, human evaluation of tutors applying this strategy is arduous and time-consuming. Large language models (LLMs) show promise in providing real-time assessment to tutors during their actual tutoring sessions, yet little is known regarding their accuracy in this context. In this study, we investigate the capacity of generative AI to evaluate real-life tutors' performance in responding to students making math errors. By analyzing 50 real-life tutoring dialogues, we find both GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4 demonstrate proficiency in assessing the criteria related to reacting to students making errors. However, both models exhibit limitations in recognizing instances where the student made an error. Notably, GPT-4 tends to overidentify instances of students making errors, often attributing student uncertainty or inferring potential errors where human evaluators did not. Future work will focus on enhancing generalizability by assessing a larger dataset of dialogues and evaluating learning transfer. Specifically, we will analyze the performance of tutors in real-life scenarios when responding to students' math errors before and after lesson completion on this crucial tutoring skill.