Search

The potential social harms that large language models pose, such as generating offensive content and reinforcing biases, are steeply rising. Existing works focus on coping with this concern while interacting with ill-intentioned users, such as those who explicitly make hate speech or elicit harmful responses. However, discussions on sensitive issues can become toxic even if the users are well-intentioned. For safer models in such scenarios, we present the Sensitive Questions and Acceptable Response (SQuARe) dataset, a large-scale Korean dataset of 49k sensitive questions with 42k acceptable and 46k non-acceptable responses. The dataset was constructed leveraging HyperCLOVA in a human-in-the-loop manner based on real news headlines. Experiments show that acceptable response generation significantly improves for HyperCLOVA and GPT-3, demonstrating the efficacy of this dataset., Comment: 19 pages, 10 figures, ACL 2023

Cities are becoming smarter and more resilient by integrating urban infrastructure with information technology. However, concerns grow that smart cities might reverse progress on civil liberties when sensing, profiling, and predicting citizen activities; undermining citizen autonomy in connectivity, mobility, and energy consumption; and deprivatizing digital infrastructure. In response, cities need to deploy technical breakthroughs, such as privacy-enhancing technologies, cohort modelling, and fair and explainable machine learning. However, as throwing technologies at cities cannot always address civil liberty concerns, cities must ensure transparency and foster citizen participation to win public trust about the way resilience and liberties are balanced.

As debates on potential societal harm from artificial intelligence (AI) culminate in legislation and international norms, a global divide is emerging in both AI regulatory frameworks and international governance structures. In terms of local regulatory frameworks, the European Union (E.U.), Canada, and Brazil follow a horizontal or lateral approach that postulates the homogeneity of AI, seeks to identify common causes of harm, and demands uniform human interventions. In contrast, the United States (U.S.), the United Kingdom (U.K.), Israel, and Switzerland (and potentially China) have pursued a context-specific or modular approach, tailoring regulations to the specific use cases of AI systems. This paper argues for a context-specific approach to effectively address evolving risks in diverse mission-critical domains, while avoiding social costs associated with one-size-fits-all approaches. However, to enhance the systematicity and interoperability of international norms and accelerate global harmonization, this paper proposes an alternative contextual, coherent, and commensurable (3C) framework. To ensure contextuality, the framework (i) bifurcates the AI life cycle into two phases: learning and deployment for specific tasks, instead of defining foundation or general-purpose models; and (ii) categorizes these tasks based on their application and interaction with humans as follows: autonomous, discriminative (allocative, punitive, and cognitive), and generative AI. To ensure coherency, each category is assigned specific regulatory objectives replacing 2010s vintage AI ethics. To ensure commensurability, the framework promotes the adoption of international standards for measuring and mitigating risks., Comment: 33(2) Wash. Int'l L.J. _ (2024)