We introduce a relevant yet challenging problem named Personalized Dictionary Learning (PerDL), where the goal is to learn sparse linear representations from heterogeneous datasets that share some commonality. In PerDL, we model each dataset's shared and unique features as global and local dictionaries. Challenges for PerDL not only are inherited from classical dictionary learning(DL), but also arise due to the unknown nature of the shared and unique features. In this paper, we rigorously formulate this problem and provide conditions under which the global and local dictionaries can be provably disentangled. Under these conditions, we provide a meta-algorithm called Personalized Matching and Averaging (PerMA) that can recover both global and local dictionaries from heterogeneous datasets. PerMA is highly efficient; it converges to the ground truth at a linear rate under suitable conditions. Moreover, it automatically borrows strength from strong learners to improve the prediction of weak learners. As a general framework for extracting global and local dictionaries, we show the application of PerDL in different learning tasks, such as training with imbalanced datasets and video surveillance.

Generative AI is frequently portrayed as revolutionary or even apocalyptic, prompting calls for novel regulatory approaches. This essay argues that such views are misguided. Instead, generative AI should be understood as an evolutionary step in the broader algorithmic media landscape, alongside search engines and social media. Like these platforms, generative AI centralizes information control, relies on complex algorithms to shape content, and extensively uses user data, thus perpetuating common problems: unchecked corporate power, echo chambers, and weakened traditional gatekeepers. Regulation should therefore share a consistent objective: ensuring media institutions remain trustworthy. Without trust, public discourse risks fragmenting into isolated communities dominated by comforting, tribal beliefs -- a threat intensified by generative AI's capacity to bypass gatekeepers and personalize truth. Current governance frameworks, such as the EU's AI Act and the US Executive Order 14110, emphasize reactive risk mitigation, addressing measurable threats like national security, public health, and algorithmic bias. While effective for novel technological risks, this reactive approach fails to adequately address broader issues of trust and legitimacy inherent to digital media. Proactive regulation fostering transparency, accountability, and public confidence is essential. Viewing generative AI exclusively as revolutionary risks repeating past regulatory failures that left social media and search engines insufficiently regulated. Instead, regulation must proactively shape an algorithmic media environment serving the public good, supporting quality information and robust civic discourse.

LLMs were tested on legal reasoning tasks involving rule analysis and analogical reasoning. The results show that LLMs can conduct basic IRAC analysis, but are limited by brief responses lacking detail, an inability to commit to answers, false confidence, and hallucinations. The study compares legal and non-legal LLMs, identifies shortcomings, and explores traits that may hinder their ability to "think like a lawyer."

We introduce a relevant yet challenging problem named Personalized Dictionary Learning (PerDL), where the goal is to learn sparse linear representations from heterogeneous datasets that share some commonality. In PerDL, we model each dataset's shared and unique features as global and local dictionaries. Challenges for PerDL not only are inherited from classical dictionary learning(DL), but also arise due to the unknown nature of the shared and unique features. In this paper, we rigorously formulate this problem and provide conditions under which the global and local dictionaries can be provably disentangled. Under these conditions, we provide a meta-algorithm called Personalized Matching and Averaging (PerMA) that can recover both global and local dictionaries from heterogeneous datasets.

As one of the most enduring metaphors within legal discourse, the marketplace of ideas has wielded considerable influence over the jurisprudential landscape for decades. A century after the inception of this theory, ChatGPT emerged as a revolutionary technological advancement in the twenty-first century. This research finds that ChatGPT effectively manifests the marketplace metaphor. It not only instantiates the promises envisaged by generations of legal scholars but also lays bare the perils discerned through sustained academic critique. Specifically, the workings of ChatGPT and the marketplace of ideas theory exhibit at least four common features: arena, means, objectives, and flaws. These shared attributes are sufficient to render ChatGPT historically the most qualified engine for actualizing the marketplace of ideas theory. The comparison of the marketplace theory and ChatGPT merely marks a starting point. A more meaningful undertaking entails reevaluating and reframing both internal and external AI policies by referring to the accumulated experience, insights, and suggestions researchers have raised to fix the marketplace theory. Here, a pivotal issue is: should truth-seeking be set as the goal of AI content governance? Given the unattainability of the absolute truth-seeking goal, I argue against adopting zero-risk policies. Instead, a more judicious approach would be to embrace a knowledge-based alternative wherein large language models (LLMs) are trained to generate competing and divergent viewpoints based on sufficient justifications. This research also argues that so-called AI content risks are not created by AI companies but are inherent in the entire information ecosystem. Thus, the burden of managing these risks should be distributed among different social actors, rather than being solely shouldered by chatbot companies.

On July 20, 2023, a group of 27 scholars and digital rights advocates with expertise in law, computer science, political science, and other disciplines gathered for the Large Language Models, Law and Policy Roundtable, co-hosted by the NYU School of Law's Information Law Institute and the Center for Democracy & Technology. The roundtable convened to discuss how law and policy can help address some of the larger societal problems posed by large language models (LLMs). The discussion focused on three policy topic areas in particular: 1. Truthfulness: What risks do LLMs pose in terms of generating mis- and disinformation? How can these risks be mitigated from a technical and/or regulatory perspective? 2. Privacy: What are the biggest privacy risks involved in the creation, deployment, and use of LLMs? How can these risks be mitigated from a technical and/or regulatory perspective? 3. Market concentration: What threats do LLMs pose concerning market/power concentration? How can these risks be mitigated from a technical and/or regulatory perspective? In this paper, we provide a detailed summary of the day's proceedings. We first recap what we deem to be the most important contributions made during the issue framing discussions. We then provide a list of potential legal and regulatory interventions generated during the brainstorming discussions.

The rise of Generative Artificial Intelligence systems ("AI systems") has created unprecedented social engagement. AI code generation systems provide responses (output) to questions or requests by accessing the vast library of open-source code created by developers over the past few decades. However, they do so by allegedly stealing the open-source code stored in virtual libraries, known as repositories. This Article focuses on how this happens and whether there is a solution that protects innovation and avoids years of litigation. We also touch upon the array of issues raised by the relationship between AI and copyright. Looking ahead, we propose the following: (a) immediate changes to the licenses for open-source code created by developers that will limit access and/or use of any open-source code to humans only; (b) we suggest revisions to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") license so that AI systems are required to procure appropriate licenses from open-source code developers, which we believe will harmonize standards and build social consensus for the benefit of all of humanity, rather than promote profit-driven centers of innovation; (c) we call for urgent legislative action to protect the future of AI systems while also promoting innovation; and (d) we propose a shift in the burden of proof to AI systems in obfuscation cases.

The AI development community is increasingly making use of hosting intermediaries such as Hugging Face provide easy access to user-uploaded models and training data. These model marketplaces lower technical deployment barriers for hundreds of thousands of users, yet can be used in numerous potentially harmful and illegal ways. In this article, we explain ways in which AI systems, which can both `contain' content and be open-ended tools, present one of the trickiest platform governance challenges seen to date. We provide case studies of several incidents across three illustrative platforms -- Hugging Face, GitHub and Civitai -- to examine how model marketplaces moderate models. Building on this analysis, we outline important (and yet nevertheless limited) practices that industry has been developing to respond to moderation demands: licensing, access and use restrictions, automated content moderation, and open policy development. While the policy challenge at hand is a considerable one, we conclude with some ideas as to how platforms could better mobilize resources to act as a careful, fair, and proportionate regulatory access point.