arXiv subjects

James Grimmelmann

Publications and source records attributed to James Grimmelmann.

10 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

The Files are in the Computer: On Copyright, Memorization, and Generative AI

The New York Times's copyright lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoft alleges OpenAI's GPT models have "memorized" NYT articles. Other lawsuits make similar claims. But parties, courts, and scholars disagree on what memorization is, whether it is taking place, and what its copyright implications are. These debates are clouded by ambiguities over the nature of "memorization." We attempt to bring clarity to the conversation. We draw on the technical literature to provide a firm foundation for legal discussions, providing a precise definition of memorization: a model has "memorized" a piece of training data when (1) it is possible to reconstruct from the model (2) a near-exact copy of (3) a substantial portion of (4) that piece of training data. We distinguish memorization from "extraction" (user intentionally causes a model to generate a near-exact copy), from "regurgitation" (model generates a near-exact copy, regardless of user intentions), and from "reconstruction" (the near-exact copy can be obtained from the model by any means). Several consequences follow. (1) Not all learning is memorization. (2) Memorization occurs when a model is trained; regurgitation is a symptom not its cause. (3) A model that has memorized training data is a "copy" of that training data in the sense used by copyright. (4) A model is not like a VCR or other general-purpose copying technology; it is better at generating some types of outputs (possibly regurgitated ones) than others. (5) Memorization is not a phenomenon caused by "adversarial" users bent on extraction; it is latent in the model itself. (6) The amount of training data that a model memorizes is a consequence of choices made in training. (7) Whether or not a model that has memorized actually regurgitates depends on overall system design. In a very real sense, memorized training data is in the model--to quote Zoolander, the files are in the computer.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Machine Unlearning Doesn't Do What You Think: Lessons for Generative AI Policy and Research

"Machine unlearning" is a popular proposed solution for mitigating the existence of content in an AI model that is problematic for legal or moral reasons, including privacy, copyright, safety, and more. For example, unlearning is often invoked as a solution for removing the effects of specific information from a generative-AI model's parameters, e.g., a particular individual's personal data or the inclusion of copyrighted content in the model's training data. Unlearning is also proposed as a way to prevent a model from generating targeted types of information in its outputs, e.g., generations that closely resemble a particular individual's data or reflect the concept of "Spiderman." Both of these goals--the targeted removal of information from a model and the targeted suppression of information from a model's outputs--present various technical and substantive challenges. We provide a framework for ML researchers and policymakers to think rigorously about these challenges, identifying several mismatches between the goals of unlearning and feasible implementations. These mismatches explain why unlearning is not a general-purpose solution for circumscribing generative-AI model behavior in service of broader positive impact.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Rescuing Counterspeech: A Bridging-Based Approach to Combating Misinformation

Social media has a misinformation problem, and counterspeech -- fighting bad speech with more speech -- has been an ineffective solution. Here, we argue that bridging-based ranking -- an algorithmic approach to promoting content favored by users of diverse viewpoints -- is a promising approach to helping counterspeech combat misinformation. By identifying counterspeech that is favored both by users who are inclined to agree and by users who are inclined to disagree with a piece of misinformation, bridging promotes counterspeech that persuades the users most likely to believe the misinformation. Furthermore, this algorithmic approach leverages crowd-sourced votes, shifting discretion from platforms back to users and enabling counterspeech at the speed and scale required to combat misinformation online. Bridging is respectful of users' autonomy and encourages broad participation in healthy exchanges; it offers a way for the free speech tradition to persist in modern speech environments.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

CopyBench: Measuring Literal and Non-Literal Reproduction of Copyright-Protected Text in Language Model Generation

Evaluating the degree of reproduction of copyright-protected content by language models (LMs) is of significant interest to the AI and legal communities. Although both literal and non-literal similarities are considered by courts when assessing the degree of reproduction, prior research has focused only on literal similarities. To bridge this gap, we introduce CopyBench, a benchmark designed to measure both literal and non-literal copying in LM generations. Using copyrighted fiction books as text sources, we provide automatic evaluation protocols to assess literal and non-literal copying, balanced against the model utility in terms of the ability to recall facts from the copyrighted works and generate fluent completions. We find that, although literal copying is relatively rare, two types of non-literal copying -- event copying and character copying -- occur even in models as small as 7B parameters. Larger models demonstrate significantly more copying, with literal copying rates increasing from 0.2\% to 10.5\% and non-literal copying from 2.3\% to 5.9\% when comparing Llama3-8B and 70B models, respectively. We further evaluate the effectiveness of current strategies for mitigating copying and show that (1) training-time alignment can reduce literal copying but may increase non-literal copying, and (2) current inference-time mitigation methods primarily reduce literal but not non-literal copying.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Mutual Benefit: The Case for Sharing Autonomous Vehicle Data with the Public

Autonomous driving is a widely researched technology that is frequently tested on public roads. The data generated from these tests represent an essential competitive element for the respective companies moving this technology forward. In this paper, we argue for the normative idea that a part of this data should more explicitly benefit the general public by sharing it through a trusted entity as a form of compensation and control for the communities that are being experimented upon. To support this argument, we highlight what data is available to be shared, make the ethical case for sharing autonomous vehicle data, present case studies in how AV data is currently shared, draw from existing data-sharing platforms from similar transportation industries to make recommendations on how data should be shared and conclude with arguments as to why such data-sharing should be encouraged.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Private Hierarchical Governance for Encrypted Messaging

The increasing harms caused by hate, harassment, and other forms of abuse online have motivated major platforms to explore hierarchical governance. The idea is to allow communities to have designated members take on moderation and leadership duties; meanwhile, members can still escalate issues to the platform. But these promising approaches have only been explored in plaintext settings where community content is public to the platform. It is unclear how one can realize hierarchical governance in the huge and increasing number of online communities that utilize end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) messaging for privacy. We propose private hierarchical governance systems. These should enable similar levels of community governance as in plaintext settings, while maintaining cryptographic privacy of content and governance actions not reported to the platform. We design the first such system, taking a layered approach that adds governance logic on top of an encrypted messaging protocol; we show how an extension to the message layer security (MLS) protocol suffices for achieving a rich set of governance policies. Our approach allows developers to rapidly prototype new governance features, taking inspiration from a plaintext system called PolicyKit. We build a prototype E2EE messaging system called MlsGov that supports content-based community and platform moderation, elections of community moderators, votes to remove abusive users, and more.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification

Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. To investigate this problem, we take an experimental approach and make four overarching contributions: We: 1) Define a metric called self-consistency, derived from variance, which we use as a proxy for measuring and reducing arbitrariness; 2) Develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary; 3) Conduct the largest to-date empirical study of the role of variance (vis-a-vis self-consistency and arbitrariness) in fair binary classification; and, 4) Release a toolkit that makes the US Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) datasets easily usable for future research. Altogether, our experiments reveal shocking insights about the reliability of conclusions on benchmark datasets. Most fair binary classification benchmarks are close-to-fair when taking into account the amount of arbitrariness present in predictions -- before we even try to apply any fairness interventions. This finding calls into question the practical utility of common algorithmic fairness methods, and in turn suggests that we should reconsider how we choose to measure fairness in binary classification.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Talkin' 'Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chain

"Does generative AI infringe copyright?" is an urgent question. It is also a difficult question, for two reasons. First, "generative AI" is not just one product from one company. It is a catch-all name for a massive ecosystem of loosely related technologies, including conversational text chatbots like ChatGPT, image generators like Midjourney and DALL-E, coding assistants like GitHub Copilot, and systems that compose music and create videos. These systems behave differently and raise different legal issues. The second problem is that copyright law is notoriously complicated, and generative-AI systems manage to touch on a great many corners of it: authorship, similarity, direct and indirect liability, fair use, and licensing, among much else. These issues cannot be analyzed in isolation, because there are connections everywhere. In this Article, we aim to bring order to the chaos. To do so, we introduce the generative-AI supply chain: an interconnected set of stages that transform training data (millions of pictures of cats) into generations (a new, potentially never-seen-before picture of a cat that has never existed). Breaking down generative AI into these constituent stages reveals all of the places at which companies and users make choices that have copyright consequences. It enables us to trace the effects of upstream technical designs on downstream uses, and to assess who in these complicated sociotechnical systems bears responsibility for infringement when it happens. Because we engage so closely with the technology of generative AI, we are able to shed more light on the copyright questions. We do not give definitive answers as to who should and should not be held liable. Instead, we identify the key decisions that courts will need to make as they grapple with these issues, and point out the consequences that would likely flow from different liability regimes.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2023

Report of the 1st Workshop on Generative AI and Law

This report presents the takeaways of the inaugural Workshop on Generative AI and Law (GenLaw), held in July 2023. A cross-disciplinary group of practitioners and scholars from computer science and law convened to discuss the technical, doctrinal, and policy challenges presented by law for Generative AI, and by Generative AI for law, with an emphasis on U.S. law in particular. We begin the report with a high-level statement about why Generative AI is both immensely significant and immensely challenging for law. To meet these challenges, we conclude that there is an essential need for 1) a shared knowledge base that provides a common conceptual language for experts across disciplines; 2) clarification of the distinctive technical capabilities of generative-AI systems, as compared and contrasted to other computer and AI systems; 3) a logical taxonomy of the legal issues these systems raise; and, 4) a concrete research agenda to promote collaboration and knowledge-sharing on emerging issues at the intersection of Generative AI and law. In this report, we synthesize the key takeaways from the GenLaw workshop that begin to address these needs. All of the listed authors contributed to the workshop upon which this report is based, but they and their organizations do not necessarily endorse all of the specific claims in this report.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Programming Languages and Law: A Research Agenda

If code is law, then the language of law is a programming language. Lawyers and legal scholars can learn about law by studying programming-language theory, and programming-language tools can be usefully applied to legal problems. This article surveys the history of research on programming languages and law and presents ten promising avenues for future efforts. Its goals are to explain how the combination of programming languages and law is distinctive within the broader field of computer science and law, and to demonstrate with concrete examples the remarkable power of programming-language concepts in this new domain.

cs.PL↗