大语言模型的兴起的一个关注点是它们可能造成重大伤害的潜力，尤其是在偏见，淫秽，版权和私人信息方面进行预处理。新兴的道德方法试图过滤预处理的材料，但是这种方法是临时的，未能考虑到上下文。我们提供了一种以法律为基础的过滤方法，该方法直接解决了过滤材料的权衡。首先，我们收集并提供了一堆法律，这是一个256GB（以及增长）的开源英语法律和行政数据数据集，涵盖法院意见，合同，行政规则和立法记录。对一堆法律进行预处理可能有助于解决有望改善司法接触的法律任务。其次，我们提炼政府已制定的法律规范将有毒或私人内容限制为可行的研究人员，并讨论我们的数据集如何反映这些规范。第三，我们展示了一堆法律如何为研究人员提供直接从数据中学习此类过滤规则的机会，从而为基于模型的处理提供了令人兴奋的新研究方向。

创新是经济和社会发展的主要驱动力，有关多种创新的信息嵌入了专利和专利申请的半结构化数据中。尽管在专利数据中表达的创新的影响和新颖性很难通过传统手段来衡量，但ML提供了一套有希望的技术来评估新颖性，汇总贡献和嵌入语义。在本文中，我们介绍了Harvard USPTO专利数据集（HUPD），该数据集是2004年至2004年之间提交给美国专利商业办公室（USPTO）的大型，结构化和多用途的英语专利专利申请。 2018年。HUPD拥有超过450万张专利文件，是可比的Coldia的两到三倍。与以前在NLP中提出的专利数据集不同，HUPD包含了专利申请的发明人提交的版本（不是授予专利的最终版本），其中允许我们在第一次使用NLP方法进行申请时研究专利性。它在包含丰富的结构化元数据以及专利申请文本的同时也很新颖：通过提供每个应用程序的元数据及其所有文本字段，数据集使研究人员能够执行一组新的NLP任务，以利用结构性协变量的变异。作为有关HUPD的研究类型的案例研究，我们向NLP社区（即专利决策的二元分类）介绍了一项新任务。我们还显示数据集中提供的结构化元数据使我们能够对此任务进行概念转移的明确研究。最后，我们演示了如何将HUPD用于三个其他任务：专利主题领域的多类分类，语言建模和摘要。

我们提出了一种新颖的基准和相关的评估指标，用于评估文本匿名方法的性能。文本匿名化定义为编辑文本文档以防止个人信息披露的任务，目前遭受了面向隐私的带注释的文本资源的短缺，因此难以正确评估各种匿名方法提供的隐私保护水平。本文介绍了标签（文本匿名基准），这是一种新的开源注释语料库，以解决此短缺。该语料库包括欧洲人权法院（ECHR）的1,268个英语法院案件，并充满了有关每个文档中出现的个人信息的全面注释，包括其语义类别，标识符类型，机密属性和共同参考关系。与以前的工作相比，TAB语料库旨在超越传统的识别（仅限于检测预定义的语义类别），并且明确标记了这些文本跨越的标记，这些文本应该被掩盖，以掩盖该人的身份受到保护。除了介绍语料库及其注释层外，我们还提出了一套评估指标，这些指标是针对衡量文本匿名性的性能而定制的，无论是在隐私保护和公用事业保护方面。我们通过评估几个基线文本匿名模型的经验性能来说明基准和提议的指标的使用。完整的语料库及其面向隐私的注释准则，评估脚本和基线模型可在以下网址提供：

随着大型语言模型的出现，抽象性摘要的方法取得了长足的进步，从而在应用程序中使用了帮助知识工人处理笨拙的文档收集的潜力。一个这样的环境是民权诉讼交换所（CRLC）（https://clearinghouse.net），其中发布了有关大规模民权诉讼，服务律师，学者和公众的信息。如今，CRLC中的摘要需要对律师和法律专业的学生进行广泛的培训，这些律师和法律专业的学生花费数小时了解多个相关文件，以便产生重要事件和结果的高质量摘要。在这种持续的现实世界摘要工作的激励下，我们引入了Multi-iplesum，这是由正在进行的CRLC写作中绘制的9,280个专家作者的摘要集。鉴于源文档的长度，多文章介绍了一个具有挑战性的多文档摘要任务，通常每个情况超过200页。此外，多胎sum与其多个目标摘要中的其他数据集不同，每个数据集都处于不同的粒度（从一句“极端”摘要到超过五百个单词的多段落叙述）。我们提供了广泛的分析，表明，尽管培训数据（遵守严格的内容和样式准则）中的摘要很高，但最新的摘要模型在此任务上的表现较差。我们发布了多体式的摘要方法，以及促进应用程序的开发，以协助CRLC的任务https://multilexsum.github.io。

世界各地的隐私法律和法规的景观是复杂而不断变化的。国家和超国家法律，协议，法令和其他政府发行的规则构成了公司必须遵循的拼凑而成才能在国际上进行运作。为了检查该拼凑而成的状态和演变，我们介绍了1,043条隐私法，法规和准则的政府隐私指示语料库或GPI语料库，涵盖了182个司法管辖区。该语料库可以对法律焦点进行大规模定量和定性检查。我们检查了创建GPI的时间分布，并说明了过去50年中隐私立法的急剧增加，尽管较细粒度的检查表明，增加的速度取决于GPIS所说的个人数据类型。我们的探索还表明，大多数隐私法分别解决了相对较少的个人数据类型，这表明全面的隐私立法仍然很少见。此外，主题建模结果显示了GPI中常见主题的普遍性，例如财务，医疗保健和电信。最后，我们将语料库释放到研究界，以促进进一步的研究。

Advocates of algorithmic techniques like data mining argue that these techniques eliminate human biases from the decision-making process. But an algorithm is only as good as the data it works with. Data is frequently imperfect in ways that allow these algorithms to inherit the prejudices of prior decision makers. In other cases, data may simply reflect the widespread biases that persist in society at large. In still others, data mining can discover surprisingly useful regularities that are really just preexisting patterns of exclusion and inequality. Unthinking reliance on data mining can deny historically disadvantaged and vulnerable groups full participation in society. Worse still, because the resulting discrimination is almost always an unintentional emergent property of the algorithm's use rather than a conscious choice by its programmers, it can be unusually hard to identify the source of the problem or to explain it to a court. This Essay examines these concerns through the lens of American antidiscrimination law-more particularly, through Title

We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda capturing complex computational legal processes, and embedding them in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning.

本文确定了数据驱动系统中的数据最小化和目的限制的两个核心数据保护原理。虽然当代数据处理实践似乎与这些原则的赔率达到差异，但我们证明系统可以在技术上使用的数据远远少于目前的数据。此观察是我们详细的技术法律分析的起点，揭示了妨碍了妨碍了实现的障碍，并举例说明了在实践中应用数据保护法的意外权衡。我们的分析旨在向辩论提供关于数据保护对欧盟人工智能发展的影响，为数据控制员，监管机构和研究人员提供实际行动点。

Recent work pre-training Transformers with self-supervised objectives on large text corpora has shown great success when fine-tuned on downstream NLP tasks including text summarization. However, pre-training objectives tailored for abstractive text summarization have not been explored. Furthermore there is a lack of systematic evaluation across diverse domains. In this work, we propose pre-training large Transformer-based encoder-decoder models on massive text corpora with a new selfsupervised objective. In PEGASUS, important sentences are removed/masked from an input document and are generated together as one output sequence from the remaining sentences, similar to an extractive summary. We evaluated our best PEGASUS model on 12 downstream summarization tasks spanning news, science, stories, instructions, emails, patents, and legislative bills. Experiments demonstrate it achieves state-of-the-art performance on all 12 downstream datasets measured by ROUGE scores. Our model also shows surprising performance on low-resource summarization, surpassing previous state-of-the-art results on 6 datasets with only 1000 examples. Finally we validated our results using human evaluation and show that our model summaries achieve human performance on multiple datasets.

大型预先训练的语言模型已经显示了几次拍摄学习的承诺，只提供了几个任务特定示例给出了基于文本的任务。款式将很快解决到目前为止为人类研究助理保留的分类任务吗？现有的基准标记不设计用于衡量应用设置的进度，因此不要直接回答这个问题。 RAFT基准（现实世界注释的少量拍摄任务）侧重于自然发生的任务，并使用镜像部署的评估设置。 RAFT的基线评估揭示了当前技术斗争的地区：推理在许多班级的长篇文章和任务上。人类基线表明，非专家人类难以反映出一些分类任务，反映了现实世界的价值有时依赖于域名专业知识。甚至非专业人类基线F1分数超过GPT-3平均为0.11。 RAFT DataSets和排行榜将跟踪哪些模型改进在https://raft.elict.org中转化为现实世界的优势。

Laws and their interpretations, legal arguments and agreements\ are typically expressed in writing, leading to the production of vast corpora of legal text. Their analysis, which is at the center of legal practice, becomes increasingly elaborate as these collections grow in size. Natural language understanding (NLU) technologies can be a valuable tool to support legal practitioners in these endeavors. Their usefulness, however, largely depends on whether current state-of-the-art models can generalize across various tasks in the legal domain. To answer this currently open question, we introduce the Legal General Language Understanding Evaluation (LexGLUE) benchmark, a collection of datasets for evaluating model performance across a diverse set of legal NLU tasks in a standardized way. We also provide an evaluation and analysis of several generic and legal-oriented models demonstrating that the latter consistently offer performance improvements across multiple tasks.

Pretrained transformer models have achieved state-of-the-art results in many tasks and benchmarks recently. Many state-of-the-art Language Models (LMs), however, do not scale well above the threshold of 512 input tokens. In specialized domains though (such as legal, scientific or biomedical), models often need to process very long text (sometimes well above 10000 tokens). Even though many efficient transformers have been proposed (such as Longformer, BigBird or FNet), so far, only very few such efficient models are available for specialized domains. Additionally, since the pretraining process is extremely costly in general - but even more so as the sequence length increases - it is often only in reach of large research labs. One way of making pretraining cheaper is the Replaced Token Detection (RTD) task, by providing more signal during training, since the loss can be computed over all tokens. In this work, we train Longformer models with the efficient RTD task on legal data to showcase that pretraining efficient LMs is possible using much less compute. We evaluate the trained models on challenging summarization tasks requiring the model to summarize long texts to show to what extent the models can achieve good performance on downstream tasks. We find that both the small and base models outperform their baselines on the in-domain BillSum and out-of-domain PubMed tasks in their respective parameter range. We publish our code and models for research purposes.

我们介绍了Sparrow，这是一个寻求信息的对话代理，与提示的语言模型基线相比，训练有素，更有帮助，正确和无害。我们使用从人类反馈中的强化学习来培训我们的模型，以帮助人类评估者判断代理人的行为。首先，为了使我们的代理人更有帮助和无害，我们将良好对话的要求分解为代理人应遵循的自然语言规则，并分别向评估者询问每个规则。我们证明，这种崩溃使我们能够收集对代理行为的更多针对性的人类判断，并允许更有效的规则条件奖励模型。其次，我们的代理商在收集对模型声明的偏好判决时提供了支持事实主张的来源的证据。对于事实问题，麻雀提供的证据支持了78％的时间。比基线比基线更享受麻雀，同时对人类的对抗性探测更具弹性，在探测时只有8％的时间违反了我们的规则。最后，我们进行了广泛的分析，表明尽管我们的模型学会遵守我们的规则，但它可以表现出分布偏见。

The optimal liability framework for AI systems remains an unsolved problem across the globe. In a much-anticipated move, the European Commission advanced two proposals outlining the European approach to AI liability in September 2022: a novel AI Liability Directive and a revision of the Product Liability Directive. They constitute the final, and much-anticipated, cornerstone of AI regulation in the EU. Crucially, the liability proposals and the EU AI Act are inherently intertwined: the latter does not contain any individual rights of affected persons, and the former lack specific, substantive rules on AI development and deployment. Taken together, these acts may well trigger a Brussels effect in AI regulation, with significant consequences for the US and other countries. This paper makes three novel contributions. First, it examines in detail the Commission proposals and shows that, while making steps in the right direction, they ultimately represent a half-hearted approach: if enacted as foreseen, AI liability in the EU will primarily rest on disclosure of evidence mechanisms and a set of narrowly defined presumptions concerning fault, defectiveness and causality. Hence, second, the article suggests amendments, which are collected in an Annex at the end of the paper. Third, based on an analysis of the key risks AI poses, the final part of the paper maps out a road for the future of AI liability and regulation, in the EU and beyond. This includes: a comprehensive framework for AI liability; provisions to support innovation; an extension to non-discrimination/algorithmic fairness, as well as explainable AI; and sustainability. I propose to jump-start sustainable AI regulation via sustainability impact assessments in the AI Act and sustainable design defects in the liability regime. In this way, the law may help spur not only fair AI and XAI, but potentially also sustainable AI (SAI).

机器学习数据集引起了对隐私，偏见和不道德应用的担忧，导致突出数据集的缩写，例如Dukemtmc，MS-Celeb-1M和微小图像。作为响应，机器学习界已在数据集创建中呼吁更高的道德标准。为了帮助通知这些努力，我们研究了三个有影响力的但道德问题的面部和人识别数据集 - 在野外（LFW），MS-Celeb-1M和DukemTM中标记的面孔 - 通过分析近1000篇引用它们的纸张。我们发现，创建衍生数据集和模型，更广泛的技术和社会变革，许可证缺乏清晰度，数据集管理实践可以引入广泛的道德问题。我们通过表明分布式方法来伤害消除数据集的整个生命周期的危害。

2021年4月，欧洲委员会提出了对人工智能的规定，称为AI法案。我们概述了该法案，分析了其影响，借鉴了当代AI对过去四十年来欧盟产品安全制度的实践的研究。AI行为的各个方面，例如不同风险水平的不同规则，有意义。但我们还发现，AI法案草案的一些规定令人惊讶的法律影响，而其他人可能在达到其指定的目标方面可能在很大程度上无效。几个总体方面，包括执法制度和最大统一的风险抢先抢占合法的国家AI政策，提出重大关注。这些问题应作为立法过程中的优先考虑。

成对图像和文本的大型数据集越来越受到愿景和愿景和语言任务的通用表示。此类数据集已通过查询搜索引擎或收集HTML Alt-Text构建 - 由于Web数据是嘈杂的，因此它们需要复杂的过滤管道来维护质量。我们探索备用数据源以收集具有最小滤波的高质量数据。我们介绍Redcaps - 从Reddit收集的12M图像文本对的大规模数据集。来自Reddit的图像和标题描绘并描述了各种各样的物体和场景。我们从手动策划的FuSoddits集中收集数据，这为粗略图像标签提供给粗略图像标签，并允许我们转向数据集组合而不标记单个实例。我们展示Redcaps培训的标题模型产生了人类优选的丰富和各种标题，并学习转移到许多下游任务的视觉表现。

自论证挖掘领域成立以来，在法律话语中识别，分类和分析的论点一直是研究的重要领域。但是，自然语言处理（NLP）研究人员的模型模型与法院决策中的注释论点与法律专家理解和分析法律论证的方式之间存在重大差异。尽管计算方法通常将论点简化为通用的前提和主张，但法律研究中的论点通常表现出丰富的类型，对于获得一般法律的特定案例和应用很重要。我们解决了这个问题，并做出了一些实质性的贡献，以推动该领域的前进。首先，我们在欧洲人权法院（ECHR）诉讼中为法律论点设计了新的注释计划，该计划深深植根于法律论证研究的理论和实践中。其次，我们编译和注释了373项法院判决（230万令牌和15K注释的论点跨度）的大量语料库。最后，我们训练一个论证挖掘模型，该模型胜过法律NLP领域中最先进的模型，并提供了彻底的基于专家的评估。所有数据集和源代码均可在https://github.com/trusthlt/mining-legal-arguments的开放lincenses下获得。

拟议的欧洲人工智能法案（AIA）是第一次尝试详细阐述由任何主要全球经济开展的AI一般法律框架。因此，AIA可能成为如何调节AI系统（应当）的更大话语中的参考点。在本文中，我们描述并讨论了AIA中提出的两项初级执法机制：高风险AI系统的提供者预计会进行的符合性评估，以及提供者必须建立履行表现的市场后监测计划在整个寿命中的高风险AI系统。我们认为，AIA可以被解释为建立欧洲审计的欧洲生态系统的建议，尽管换句话说。我们的分析提供了两个主要贡献。首先，通过描述从现有文献借入的AI审计中借用的AIA中包含的执法机制，我们帮助AI系统的提供者了解它们如何证明在实践中遵守AIA所示的要求。其次，通过从审计视角审查AIA，我们寻求提供以前研究如何进一步改进AIA中概述的监管方法的可转让教训。我们通过突出AIA的七个方面来结束修正案（或简单澄清）会有所帮助。最重要的是，需要将模糊概念转化为可验证标准，并加强基于内部支票的符合性评估的体制保障措施。