The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) models, including GitHub Copilot, OpenAI GPT, and Stable Diffusion, has revolutionized content creation, enabling non-professionals to produce high-quality content across various domains. This transformative technology has led to a surge of synthetic content and sparked legal disputes over copyright infringement. To address these challenges, this paper introduces a novel approach that leverages the learning capacity of GenAI models for copyright legal analysis, demonstrated with GPT2 and Stable Diffusion models. Copyright law distinguishes between original expressions and generic ones (Sc\`enes \`a faire), protecting the former and permitting reproduction of the latter. However, this distinction has historically been challenging to make consistently, leading to over-protection of copyrighted works. GenAI offers an unprecedented opportunity to enhance this legal analysis by revealing shared patterns in preexisting works. We propose a data-driven approach to identify the genericity of works created by GenAI, employing "data-driven bias" to assess the genericity of expressive compositions. This approach aids in copyright scope determination by utilizing the capabilities of GenAI to identify and prioritize expressive elements and rank them according to their frequency in the model's dataset. The potential implications of measuring expressive genericity for copyright law are profound. Such scoring could assist courts in determining copyright scope during litigation, inform the registration practices of Copyright Offices, allowing registration of only highly original synthetic works, and help copyright owners signal the value of their works and facilitate fairer licensing deals. More generally, this approach offers valuable insights to policymakers grappling with adapting copyright law to the challenges posed by the era of GenAI.

This paper introduces a novel annotation framework for the fine-grained modeling of Noun Phrases' (NPs) genericity in natural language. The framework is designed to be simple and intuitive, making it accessible to non-expert annotators and suitable for crowd-sourced tasks. Drawing from theoretical and cognitive literature on genericity, this framework is grounded in established linguistic theory. Through a pilot study, we created a small but crucial annotated dataset of 324 sentences, serving as a foundation for future research. To validate our approach, we conducted an evaluation comparing our continuous annotations with existing binary annotations on the same dataset, demonstrating the framework's effectiveness in capturing nuanced aspects of genericity. Our work offers a practical resource for linguists, providing a first annotated dataset and an annotation scheme designed to build real-language datasets that can be used in studies on the semantics of genericity, and NLP practitioners, contributing to the development of commonsense knowledge repositories valuable in enhancing various NLP applications.

Many treatments of epistemological paradoxes in modal logic proceed along the following lines. Begin with some enumeration of assumptions that are individually plausible but when taken together fail to be jointly consistent (or at any rate fail to stand to reason in some way). Thereupon proceed to propose a resolution to the emerging paradox that identifies one or more assumptions that may be comfortably discarded or weakened and that in the presence of the remaining assumptions circumvents the troubling inconsistency defining the paradox [11] (cf. Chow [8] and de Vos et al. [16]). Typical among such assumptions are logical standards expressed in the form of inference rules and axioms pertaining to knowledge and belief, such as axiom scheme K -- that is to say, the distributive axiom scheme of the form K( ϕ ψ) (K ϕ K ψ). The choice of precisely which assumptions to temper can, at times, have an element of arbitrariness to it, especially when the choice is made from among several independent alternatives underpinning distinct resolutions in the absence of clear criteria or compelling grounds for distinguishing among them.

Large language models have shown impressive performance across a wide variety of tasks, including text summarization. In this paper, we show that this strong performance extends to opinion summarization. We explore several pipeline methods for applying GPT-3.5 to summarize a large collection of user reviews in a prompted fashion. To handle arbitrarily large numbers of user reviews, we explore recursive summarization as well as methods for selecting salient content to summarize through supervised clustering or extraction. On two datasets, an aspect-oriented summarization dataset of hotel reviews (SPACE) and a generic summarization dataset of Amazon and Yelp reviews (FewSum), we show that GPT-3.5 models achieve very strong performance in human evaluation. We argue that standard evaluation metrics do not reflect this, and introduce three new metrics targeting faithfulness, factuality, and genericity to contrast these different methods.

Deep generative models reproduce complex empirical data but cannot extrapolate to novel environments. An intuitive idea to promote extrapolation capabilities is to enforce the architecture to have the modular structure of a causal graphical model, where one can intervene on each module independently of the others in the graph. We develop a framework to formalize this intuition, using the principle of Independent Causal Mechanisms, and show how over-parameterization of generative neural networks can hinder extrapolation capabilities. Our experiments on the generation of human faces shows successive layers of a generator architecture implement independent mechanisms to some extent, allowing meaningful extrapolations. Finally, we illustrate that independence of mechanisms may be enforced during training to improve extrapolation.

The postulate of independence of cause and mechanism (ICM) has recently led to several new causal discovery algorithms. The interpretation of independence and the way it is utilized, however, varies across these methods. Our aim in this paper is to propose a group theoretic framework for ICM to unify and generalize these approaches. In our setting, the cause-mechanism relationship is assessed by comparing it against a null hypothesis through the application of random generic group transformations. We show that the group theoretic view provides a very general tool to study the structure of data generating mechanisms with direct applications to machine learning.

We propose a method called ideal regression for approximating an arbitrary system of polynomial equations by a system of a particular type. Using techniques from approximate computational algebraic geometry, we show how we can solve ideal regression directly without resorting to numerical optimization. Ideal regression is useful whenever the solution to a learning problem can be described by a system of polynomial equations. As an example, we demonstrate how to formulate Stationary Subspace Analysis (SSA), a source separation problem, in terms of ideal regression, which also yields a consistent estimator for SSA. We then compare this estimator in simulations with previous optimization-based approaches for SSA.

We propose a novel algebraic algorithmic framework for dealing with probability distributions represented by their cumulants such as the mean and covariance matrix. As an example, we consider the unsupervised learning problem of finding the subspace on which several probability distributions agree. Instead of minimizing an objective function involving the estimated cumulants, we show that by treating the cumulants as elements of the polynomial ring we can directly solve the problem, at a lower computational cost and with higher accuracy. Moreover, the algebraic viewpoint on probability distributions allows us to invoke the theory of algebraic geometry, which we demonstrate in a compact proof for an identifiability criterion.