Where's the Liability in Harmful AI Speech?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04635v2
• Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 20:44:42 GMT
• Title: Where's the Liability in Harmful AI Speech?
• Authors: Peter Henderson, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Mark Lemley
• Abstract summary: Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify problematic speech. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios.
• Score: 42.97651263209725
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI, in particular text-based "foundation models" (large models trained on a huge variety of information including the internet), can generate speech that could be problematic under a wide range of liability regimes. Machine learning practitioners regularly "red team" models to identify and mitigate such problematic speech: from "hallucinations" falsely accusing people of serious misconduct to recipes for constructing an atomic bomb. A key question is whether these red-teamed behaviors actually present any liability risk for model creators and deployers under U.S. law, incentivizing investments in safety mechanisms. We examine three liability regimes, tying them to common examples of red-teamed model behaviors: defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, and wrongful death. We find that any Section 230 immunity analysis or downstream liability analysis is intimately wrapped up in the technical details of algorithm design. And there are many roadblocks to truly finding models (and their associated parties) liable for generated speech. We argue that AI should not be categorically immune from liability in these scenarios and that as courts grapple with the already fine-grained complexities of platform algorithms, the technical details of generative AI loom above with thornier questions. Courts and policymakers should think carefully about what technical design incentives they create as they evaluate these issues.

Related papers

• Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools [32.78336381381673]
  We report on the first preregistered empirical evaluation of AI-driven legal research tools. We find that the AI research tools made by LexisNexis (Lexis+ AI) and Thomson Reuters (Westlaw AI-Assisted Research and Ask Practical Law AI) each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time. It provides evidence to inform the responsibilities of legal professionals in supervising and verifying AI outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:56:05Z)
• Not My Voice! A Taxonomy of Ethical and Safety Harms of Speech Generators [2.500481442438427]
  We analyse speech generation incidents to study how patterns of specific harms arise. We propose a conceptual framework for modelling pathways to ethical and safety harms of AI. Our relational approach captures the complexity of risks and harms in sociotechnical AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T11:47:06Z)
• Understanding writing style in social media with a supervised contrastively pre-trained transformer [57.48690310135374]
  Online Social Networks serve as fertile ground for harmful behavior, ranging from hate speech to the dissemination of disinformation. We introduce the Style Transformer for Authorship Representations (STAR), trained on a large corpus derived from public sources of 4.5 x 106 authored texts. Using a support base of 8 documents of 512 tokens, we can discern authors from sets of up to 1616 authors with at least 80% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T09:01:17Z)
• Talkin' 'Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chain [7.277548732853764]
  "Does generative AI infringe copyright?" is an urgent question. generative AI is not just one product from one company. It is a catch-all name for a massive ecosystem of loosely related technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T04:02:48Z)
• Learning Vision-based Pursuit-Evasion Robot Policies [54.52536214251999]
  We develop a fully-observable robot policy that generates supervision for a partially-observable one. We deploy our policy on a physical quadruped robot with an RGB-D camera on pursuit-evasion interactions in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-30T17:59:05Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI [179.2384121957896]
  This paper reports the findings of a workshop held at Google on the dual-use dilemma posed by GenAI. GenAI can be used just as well by attackers to generate new attacks and increase the velocity and efficacy of existing attacks. We discuss short-term and long-term goals for the community on this topic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T18:51:09Z)
• Fact-Saboteurs: A Taxonomy of Evidence Manipulation Attacks against Fact-Verification Systems [80.3811072650087]
  We show that it is possible to subtly modify claim-salient snippets in the evidence and generate diverse and claim-aligned evidence. The attacks are also robust against post-hoc modifications of the claim. These attacks can have harmful implications on the inspectable and human-in-the-loop usage scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T13:39:24Z)
• Should Machine Learning Models Report to Us When They Are Clueless? [0.0]
  We report that AI models extrapolate outside their range of familiar data. Knowing whether a model has extrapolated or not is a fundamental insight that should be included in explaining AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-23T01:50:24Z)
• Attacking Open-domain Question Answering by Injecting Misinformation [116.25434773461465]
  We study the risk of misinformation to Question Answering (QA) models by investigating the sensitivity of open-domain QA models to misinformation documents. Experiments show that QA models are vulnerable to even small amounts of evidence contamination brought by misinformation. We discuss the necessity of building a misinformation-aware QA system that integrates question-answering and misinformation detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T01:55:18Z)
• Brittle AI, Causal Confusion, and Bad Mental Models: Challenges and Successes in the XAI Program [17.52385105997044]
  Deep neural network driven models have surpassed human level performance in benchmark autonomy tasks. The underlying policies for these agents, however, are not easily interpretable. This paper discusses the origins of these takeaways, provides amplifying information, and suggestions for future work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-10T05:21:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.