Microsoft and chipmaker Nvidia are the latest companies to take the hot seat in a series of Senate judiciary hearings on artificial intelligence as the federal government continues to grapple with how to regulate the technology. Microsoft's president, Brad Smith, and Nvidia's chief scientist, William Dally, are expected to testify on Tuesday alongside Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law at Boston University School of Law. Both companies have been at the forefront of the AI boom, ramping up their investment in developing and utilizing aspects of the AI supply chain. Microsoft invested in a series of partnerships as well as its own in-house AI technology, Copilot. In addition to its $10bn investment in the ChatGPT owner, OpenAI, Microsoft partnered with Meta on the release and support of the social media platform's open-source large language model Llama 2. Nvidia, for its part, has benefited from its early investment and focus on building computer chips for AI systems, raking in more than $13bn in revenue in the second quarter.

Jeff Zients, the White House chief of staff, on Tuesday afternoon plans to meet with representatives from several of the companies, including Photoshop maker Adobe, AI platform Cohere and ScaleAI, which provides data services to companies including OpenAI. The conversation is expected to primarily focus on AI benefits and risks, and cover much of the same ground as the AI summit that the White House hosted with the chief executives of other large tech companies in July, according to a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

As large language models (LLMs) become more deeply integrated into various sectors, understanding how they make moral judgments has become crucial, particularly in the realm of autonomous driving. This study utilized the Moral Machine framework to investigate the ethical decision-making tendencies of prominent LLMs, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, PaLM 2, and Llama 2, comparing their responses to human preferences. While LLMs' and humans' preferences such as prioritizing humans over pets and favoring saving more lives are broadly aligned, PaLM 2 and Llama 2, especially, evidence distinct deviations. Additionally, despite the qualitative similarities between the LLM and human preferences, there are significant quantitative disparities, suggesting that LLMs might lean toward more uncompromising decisions, compared to the milder inclinations of humans.

This work investigates the applicability of recent generative Large Language Models (LLMs), such as the GPT series and Flan-T5, to ontology alignment for identifying concept equivalence mappings across ontologies. To test the zero-shot performance of Flan-T5-XXL and GPT-3.5-turbo, we leverage challenging subsets from two equivalence matching datasets of the OAEI Bio-ML track, taking into account concept labels and structural contexts. Preliminary findings suggest that LLMs have the potential to outperform existing ontology alignment systems like BERTMap, given careful framework and prompt design.

Developing high-performing dialogue systems benefits from the automatic identification of undesirable behaviors in system responses. However, detecting such behaviors remains challenging, as it draws on a breadth of general knowledge and understanding of conversational practices. Although recent research has focused on building specialized classifiers for detecting specific dialogue behaviors, the behavior coverage is still incomplete and there is a lack of testing on real-world human-bot interactions. This paper investigates the ability of a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM), ChatGPT-3.5, to perform dialogue behavior detection for nine categories in real human-bot dialogues. We aim to assess whether ChatGPT can match specialized models and approximate human performance, thereby reducing the cost of behavior detection tasks. Our findings reveal that neither specialized models nor ChatGPT have yet achieved satisfactory results for this task, falling short of human performance. Nevertheless, ChatGPT shows promising potential and often outperforms specialized detection models. We conclude with an in-depth examination of the prevalent shortcomings of ChatGPT, offering guidance for future research to enhance LLM capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generalization across diverse tasks, leading individuals to increasingly use them as personal assistants and universal computing engines. Nevertheless, a notable obstacle emerges when feeding numerical/temporal data into these models, such as data sourced from wearables or electronic health records. LLMs employ tokenizers in their input that break down text into smaller units. However, tokenizers are not designed to represent numerical values and might struggle to understand repetitive patterns and context, treating consecutive values as separate tokens and disregarding their temporal relationships. Here, we discuss recent works that employ LLMs for human-centric tasks such as in mobile health sensing and present a case study showing that popular LLMs tokenize temporal data incorrectly. To address that, we highlight potential solutions such as prompt tuning with lightweight embedding layers as well as multimodal adapters, that can help bridge this "modality gap". While the capability of language models to generalize to other modalities with minimal or no finetuning is exciting, this paper underscores the fact that their outputs cannot be meaningful if they stumble over input nuances.

Media houses reporting on public figures, often come with their own biases stemming from their respective worldviews. A characterization of these underlying patterns helps us in better understanding and interpreting news stories. For this, we need diverse or subjective summarizations, which may not be amenable for classifying into predefined class labels. This work proposes a zero-shot approach for non-extractive or generative characterizations of person entities from a corpus using GPT-2. We use well-articulated articles from several well-known news media houses as a corpus to build a sound argument for this approach. First, we fine-tune a GPT-2 pre-trained language model with a corpus where specific person entities are characterized. Second, we further fine-tune this with demonstrations of person entity characterizations, created from a corpus of programmatically constructed characterizations. This twice fine-tuned model is primed with manual prompts consisting of entity names that were not previously encountered in the second fine-tuning, to generate a simple sentence about the entity. The results were encouraging, when compared against actual characterizations from the corpus.

A hallmark of intelligence is the ability to use a familiar domain to make inferences about a less familiar domain, known as analogical reasoning. In this article, we delve into the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in dealing with progressively complex analogies expressed in unstructured text. We discuss analogies at four distinct levels of complexity: lexical analogies, syntactic analogies, semantic analogies, and pragmatic analogies. As the analogies become more complex, they require increasingly extensive, diverse knowledge beyond the textual content, unlikely to be found in the lexical co-occurrence statistics that power LLMs. To address this, we discuss the necessity of employing Neuro-symbolic AI techniques that combine statistical and symbolic AI, informing the representation of unstructured text to highlight and augment relevant content, provide abstraction and guide the mapping process. Our knowledge-informed approach maintains the efficiency of LLMs while preserving the ability to explain analogies for pedagogical applications.

Learning paradigms for large language models (LLMs) currently tend to fall within either in-context learning (ICL) or full fine-tuning. Each of these comes with their own trade-offs based on available data, model size, compute cost, ease-of-use, and final quality with neither solution performing well across-the-board. In this article, we first describe ICL and fine-tuning paradigms in a way that highlights their natural connections. Some of their most exciting capabilities, such as producing logical reasoning to solve a problem, are found to emerge only when the model size is over a certain threshold, often hundreds of billions of parameters (Wei et al., 2022b;a). The impressive capabilities of these models to produce high-quality responses without any task-specific tuning along with the very high cost of further tuning such models has led much recent work to focus on the paradigm of In-Context Learning (ICL)--placing a few task-specific examples and instructions into the model's input (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Google et al., 2023; OpenAI, 2023). Although prior work has seen that fine-tuning a model on task data can often lead to superior performance on the downstream task compared to ICL (Scao & Rush, 2021; Schick & Schütze, 2020a;b; Asai et al., 2023), there are significantly fewer recent efforts on fine-tuning models for tasks with limited data, perhaps because the time and compute costs associated with tuning a very large model drives practitioners toward smaller models, abandoning the ability to take advantage of emergent model capabilities.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate increasingly human-like abilities in various natural language processing (NLP) tasks that are bound to become integral to personalized technologies, understanding their capabilities and inherent biases is crucial. Our study investigates the potential of LLMs like ChatGPT to infer psychological dispositions of individuals from their digital footprints. Specifically, we assess the ability of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to derive the Big Five personality traits from users' Facebook status updates in a zero-shot learning scenario. Our results show an average correlation of r = .29 (range = [.22, .33]) between LLM-inferred and self-reported trait scores. Furthermore, our findings suggest biases in personality inferences with regard to gender and age: inferred scores demonstrated smaller errors for women and younger individuals on several traits, suggesting a potential systematic bias stemming from the underlying training data or differences in online self-expression.