AI

deepfakes-in-the-courtroom:-us-judicial-panel-debates-new-ai-evidence-rules

Deepfakes in the courtroom: US judicial panel debates new AI evidence rules

AI, AI ethics, AI safety, Biz & IT, Deepfakes, federal goverment, judicial, machine learning, Panel, Policy, Reuters, United States Government, us courts, US govenment / /

adventures in 21st-century justice —

Panel of eight judges confronts deep-faking AI tech that may undermine legal trials.

–

An illustration of a man with a very long nose holding up the scales of justice.

On Friday, a federal judicial panel convened in Washington, DC, to discuss the challenges of policing AI-generated evidence in court trials, according to a Reuters report. The US Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, an eight-member panel responsible for drafting evidence-related amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence, heard from computer scientists and academics about the potential risks of AI being used to manipulate images and videos or create deepfakes that could disrupt a trial.

The meeting took place amid broader efforts by federal and state courts nationwide to address the rise of generative AI models (such as those that power OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion), which can be trained on large datasets with the aim of producing realistic text, images, audio, or videos.

In the published 358-page agenda for the meeting, the committee offers up this definition of a deepfake and the problems AI-generated media may pose in legal trials:

A deepfake is an inauthentic audiovisual presentation prepared by software programs using artificial intelligence. Of course, photos and videos have always been subject to forgery, but developments in AI make deepfakes much more difficult to detect. Software for creating deepfakes is already freely available online and fairly easy for anyone to use. As the software’s usability and the videos’ apparent genuineness keep improving over time, it will become harder for computer systems, much less lay jurors, to tell real from fake.

During Friday’s three-hour hearing, the panel wrestled with the question of whether existing rules, which predate the rise of generative AI, are sufficient to ensure the reliability and authenticity of evidence presented in court.

Some judges on the panel, such as US Circuit Judge Richard Sullivan and US District Judge Valerie Caproni, reportedly expressed skepticism about the urgency of the issue, noting that there have been few instances so far of judges being asked to exclude AI-generated evidence.

“I’m not sure that this is the crisis that it’s been painted as, and I’m not sure that judges don’t have the tools already to deal with this,” said Judge Sullivan, as quoted by Reuters.

Last year, Chief US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts acknowledged the potential benefits of AI for litigants and judges, while emphasizing the need for the judiciary to consider its proper uses in litigation. US District Judge Patrick Schiltz, the evidence committee’s chair, said that determining how the judiciary can best react to AI is one of Roberts’ priorities.

In Friday’s meeting, the committee considered several deepfake-related rule changes. In the agenda for the meeting, US District Judge Paul Grimm and attorney Maura Grossman proposed modifying Federal Rule 901(b)(9) (see page 5), which involves authenticating or identifying evidence. They also recommended the addition of a new rule, 901(c), which might read:

901(c): Potentially Fabricated or Altered Electronic Evidence. If a party challenging the authenticity of computer-generated or other electronic evidence demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not either fabricated, or altered in whole or in part, the evidence is admissible only if the proponent demonstrates that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect on the party challenging the evidence.

The panel agreed during the meeting that this proposal to address concerns about litigants challenging evidence as deepfakes did not work as written and that it will be reworked before being reconsidered later.

Another proposal by Andrea Roth, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, suggested subjecting machine-generated evidence to the same reliability requirements as expert witnesses. However, Judge Schiltz cautioned that such a rule could hamper prosecutions by allowing defense lawyers to challenge any digital evidence without establishing a reason to question it.

For now, no definitive rule changes have been made, and the process continues. But we’re witnessing the first steps of how the US justice system will adapt to an entirely new class of media-generating technology.

Putting aside risks from AI-generated evidence, generative AI has led to embarrassing moments for lawyers in court over the past two years. In May 2023, US lawyer Steven Schwartz of the firm Levidow, Levidow, & Oberman apologized to a judge for using ChatGPT to help write court filings that inaccurately cited six nonexistent cases, leading to serious questions about the reliability of AI in legal research. Also, in November, a lawyer for Michael Cohen cited three fake cases that were potentially influenced by a confabulating AI assistant.

Deepfakes in the courtroom: US judicial panel debates new AI evidence rules Read More »

microsoft’s-phi-3-shows-the-surprising-power-of-small,-locally-run-ai-language-models

Microsoft’s Phi-3 shows the surprising power of small, locally run AI language models

AI, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, large language models, machine learning, microsoft, Microsoft Phi, Mistral, openai, Phi-2, Phi-3, Simon Willison, small language models / /

small packages —

Microsoft’s 3.8B parameter Phi-3 may rival GPT-3.5, signaling a new era of “small language models.”

–

An illustration of lots of information being compressed into a smartphone with a funnel.

Getty Images

On Tuesday, Microsoft announced a new, freely available lightweight AI language model named Phi-3-mini, which is simpler and less expensive to operate than traditional large language models (LLMs) like OpenAI’s GPT-4 Turbo. Its small size is ideal for running locally, which could bring an AI model of similar capability to the free version of ChatGPT to a smartphone without needing an Internet connection to run it.

The AI field typically measures AI language model size by parameter count. Parameters are numerical values in a neural network that determine how the language model processes and generates text. They are learned during training on large datasets and essentially encode the model’s knowledge into quantified form. More parameters generally allow the model to capture more nuanced and complex language-generation capabilities but also require more computational resources to train and run.

Some of the largest language models today, like Google’s PaLM 2, have hundreds of billions of parameters. OpenAI’s GPT-4 is rumored to have over a trillion parameters but spread over eight 220-billion parameter models in a mixture-of-experts configuration. Both models require heavy-duty data center GPUs (and supporting systems) to run properly.

In contrast, Microsoft aimed small with Phi-3-mini, which contains only 3.8 billion parameters and was trained on 3.3 trillion tokens. That makes it ideal to run on consumer GPU or AI-acceleration hardware that can be found in smartphones and laptops. It’s a follow-up of two previous small language models from Microsoft: Phi-2, released in December, and Phi-1, released in June 2023.

A chart provided by Microsoft showing Phi-3 performance on various benchmarks.

Enlarge / A chart provided by Microsoft showing Phi-3 performance on various benchmarks.

Phi-3-mini features a 4,000-token context window, but Microsoft also introduced a 128K-token version called “phi-3-mini-128K.” Microsoft has also created 7-billion and 14-billion parameter versions of Phi-3 that it plans to release later that it claims are “significantly more capable” than phi-3-mini.

Microsoft says that Phi-3 features overall performance that “rivals that of models such as Mixtral 8x7B and GPT-3.5,” as detailed in a paper titled “Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone.” Mixtral 8x7B, from French AI company Mistral, utilizes a mixture-of-experts model, and GPT-3.5 powers the free version of ChatGPT.

“[Phi-3] looks like it’s going to be a shockingly good small model if their benchmarks are reflective of what it can actually do,” said AI researcher Simon Willison in an interview with Ars. Shortly after providing that quote, Willison downloaded Phi-3 to his Macbook laptop locally and said, “I got it working, and it’s GOOD” in a text message sent to Ars.

A screenshot of Phi-3-mini running locally on Simon Willison's Macbook.

Enlarge / A screenshot of Phi-3-mini running locally on Simon Willison’s Macbook.

Simon Willison

“Most models that run on a local device still need hefty hardware,” says Willison. “Phi-3-mini runs comfortably with less than 8GB of RAM, and can churn out tokens at a reasonable speed even on just a regular CPU. It’s licensed MIT and should work well on a $55 Raspberry Pi—and the quality of results I’ve seen from it so far are comparable to models 4x larger.“

How did Microsoft cram a capability potentially similar to GPT-3.5, which has at least 175 billion parameters, into such a small model? Its researchers found the answer by using carefully curated, high-quality training data they initially pulled from textbooks. “The innovation lies entirely in our dataset for training, a scaled-up version of the one used for phi-2, composed of heavily filtered web data and synthetic data,” writes Microsoft. “The model is also further aligned for robustness, safety, and chat format.”

Much has been written about the potential environmental impact of AI models and datacenters themselves, including on Ars. With new techniques and research, it’s possible that machine learning experts may continue to increase the capability of smaller AI models, replacing the need for larger ones—at least for everyday tasks. That would theoretically not only save money in the long run but also require far less energy in aggregate, dramatically decreasing AI’s environmental footprint. AI models like Phi-3 may be a step toward that future if the benchmark results hold up to scrutiny.

Phi-3 is immediately available on Microsoft’s cloud service platform Azure, as well as through partnerships with machine learning model platform Hugging Face and Ollama, a framework that allows models to run locally on Macs and PCs.

Microsoft’s Phi-3 shows the surprising power of small, locally run AI language models Read More »

high-speed-imaging-and-ai-help-us-understand-how-insect-wings-work

High-speed imaging and AI help us understand how insect wings work

AI, Biology, Biomechanics, Computer science, flight, insects, muscles, Science, wings / /
Black and white images of a fly with its wings in a variety of positions, showing the details of a wing beat.

Enlarge / A time-lapse showing how an insect’s wing adopts very specific positions during flight.

Florian Muijres, Dickinson Lab

About 350 million years ago, our planet witnessed the evolution of the first flying creatures. They are still around, and some of them continue to annoy us with their buzzing. While scientists have classified these creatures as pterygotes, the rest of the world simply calls them winged insects.

There are many aspects of insect biology, especially their flight, that remain a mystery for scientists. One is simply how they move their wings. The insect wing hinge is a specialized joint that connects an insect’s wings with its body. It’s composed of five interconnected plate-like structures called sclerites. When these plates are shifted by the underlying muscles, it makes the insect wings flap.

Until now, it has been tricky for scientists to understand the biomechanics that govern the motion of the sclerites even using advanced imaging technologies. “The sclerites within the wing hinge are so small and move so rapidly that their mechanical operation during flight has not been accurately captured despite efforts using stroboscopic photography, high-speed videography, and X-ray tomography,” Michael Dickinson, Zarem professor of biology and bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), told Ars Technica.

As a result, scientists are unable to visualize exactly what’s going on at the micro-scale within the wing hinge as they fly, preventing them from studying insect flight in detail. However, a new study by Dickinson and his team finally revealed the working of sclerites and the insect wing hinge. They captured the wing motion of fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) analyzing 72,000 recorded wing beats using a neural network to decode the role individual sclerites played in shaping insect wing motion.

Understanding the insect wing hinge

The biomechanics that govern insect flight are quite different from those of birds and bats. This is because wings in insects didn’t evolve from limbs. “In the case of birds, bats, and pterosaurs we know exactly where the wings came from evolutionarily because all these animals fly with their forelimbs. They’re basically using their arms to fly. In insects, it’s a completely different story. They evolved from six-legged organisms and they kept all six legs. However, they added flapping appendages to the dorsal side of their body, and it is a mystery as to where those wings came from,” Dickinson explained.

Some researchers suggest that insect wings came from gill-like appendages present in ancient aquatic arthropods. Others argue that wings originated from “lobes,” special outgrowths found on the legs of ancient crustaceans, which were ancestors of insects. This debate is still ongoing, so its evolution can’t tell us much about how the hinge and the sclerites operate.

Understanding the hinge mechanics is crucial because this is what makes insects efficient flying creatures. It enables them to fly at impressive speeds relative to their body sizes (some insects can fly at 33 mph) and to demonstrate great maneuverability and stability while in flight.

“The insect wing hinge is arguably among the most sophisticated and evolutionarily important skeletal structures in the natural world,” according to the study authors.

However, imaging the activity of four of the five sclerites that form the hinge has been impossible due to their size and the speeds at which they move. Dickinson and his team employed a multidisciplinary approach to overcome this challenge. They designed an apparatus equipped with three high-speed cameras that recorded the activity of tethered fruit flies at 15,000 frames per second using infrared light.

They also used a calcium-sensitive protein to track changes in the activity of the steering muscles of the insects as they flew (calcium helps trigger muscle contractions). “We recorded a total of 485 flight sequences from 82 flies. After excluding a subset of wingbeats from sequences when the fly either stopped flying or flew at an abnormally low wingbeat frequency, we obtained a final dataset of 72,219 wingbeats,” the researchers note.

Next, they trained a machine-learning-based convolutional neural network (CNN) using 85 percent of the dataset. “We used the CNN model to investigate the transformation between muscle activity and wing motion by performing a set of virtual manipulations, exploiting the network to execute experiments that would be difficult to perform on actual flies,” they explained.

In addition to the neural network, they also developed an encoder-decoder neural network (an architecture used in machine learning) and fed it data related to steering muscle activity. While the CNN model could predict wing motion, the encoder/decoder could predict the action of individual sclerite muscles during the movement of the wings. Now, it was time to check whether the data they predicted was accurate.

High-speed imaging and AI help us understand how insect wings work Read More »

microsoft’s-vasa-1-can-deepfake-a-person-with-one-photo-and-one-audio-track

Microsoft’s VASA-1 can deepfake a person with one photo and one audio track

AI, AI ethics, AI safety, Biz & IT, Deepfakes, image synthesis, machine learning, microsoft, VASA-1, video synthesis / /

pics and it didn’t happen —

YouTube videos of 6K celebrities helped train AI model to animate photos in real time.

–

A sample image from Microsoft for

Enlarge / A sample image from Microsoft for “VASA-1: Lifelike Audio-Driven Talking Faces Generated in Real Time.”

On Tuesday, Microsoft Research Asia unveiled VASA-1, an AI model that can create a synchronized animated video of a person talking or singing from a single photo and an existing audio track. In the future, it could power virtual avatars that render locally and don’t require video feeds—or allow anyone with similar tools to take a photo of a person found online and make them appear to say whatever they want.

“It paves the way for real-time engagements with lifelike avatars that emulate human conversational behaviors,” reads the abstract of the accompanying research paper titled, “VASA-1: Lifelike Audio-Driven Talking Faces Generated in Real Time.” It’s the work of Sicheng Xu, Guojun Chen, Yu-Xiao Guo, Jiaolong Yang, Chong Li, Zhenyu Zang, Yizhong Zhang, Xin Tong, and Baining Guo.

The VASA framework (short for “Visual Affective Skills Animator”) uses machine learning to analyze a static image along with a speech audio clip. It is then able to generate a realistic video with precise facial expressions, head movements, and lip-syncing to the audio. It does not clone or simulate voices (like other Microsoft research) but relies on an existing audio input that could be specially recorded or spoken for a particular purpose.

Microsoft claims the model significantly outperforms previous speech animation methods in terms of realism, expressiveness, and efficiency. To our eyes, it does seem like an improvement over single-image animating models that have come before.

AI research efforts to animate a single photo of a person or character extend back at least a few years, but more recently, researchers have been working on automatically synchronizing a generated video to an audio track. In February, an AI model called EMO: Emote Portrait Alive from Alibaba’s Institute for Intelligent Computing research group made waves with a similar approach to VASA-1 that can automatically sync an animated photo to a provided audio track (they call it “Audio2Video”).

Trained on YouTube clips

Microsoft Researchers trained VASA-1 on the VoxCeleb2 dataset created in 2018 by three researchers from the University of Oxford. That dataset contains “over 1 million utterances for 6,112 celebrities,” according to the VoxCeleb2 website, extracted from videos uploaded to YouTube. VASA-1 can reportedly generate videos of 512×512 pixel resolution at up to 40 frames per second with minimal latency, which means it could potentially be used for realtime applications like video conferencing.

To show off the model, Microsoft created a VASA-1 research page featuring many sample videos of the tool in action, including people singing and speaking in sync with pre-recorded audio tracks. They show how the model can be controlled to express different moods or change its eye gaze. The examples also include some more fanciful generations, such as Mona Lisa rapping to an audio track of Anne Hathaway performing a “Paparazzi” song on Conan O’Brien.

The researchers say that, for privacy reasons, each example photo on their page was AI-generated by StyleGAN2 or DALL-E 3 (aside from the Mona Lisa). But it’s obvious that the technique could equally apply to photos of real people as well, although it’s likely that it will work better if a person appears similar to a celebrity present in the training dataset. Still, the researchers say that deepfaking real humans is not their intention.

“We are exploring visual affective skill generation for virtual, interactive charactors [sic], NOT impersonating any person in the real world. This is only a research demonstration and there’s no product or API release plan,” reads the site.

While the Microsoft researchers tout potential positive applications like enhancing educational equity, improving accessibility, and providing therapeutic companionship, the technology could also easily be misused. For example, it could allow people to fake video chats, make real people appear to say things they never actually said (especially when paired with a cloned voice track), or allow harassment from a single social media photo.

Right now, the generated video still looks imperfect in some ways, but it could be fairly convincing for some people if they did not know to expect an AI-generated animation. The researchers say they are aware of this, which is why they are not openly releasing the code that powers the model.

“We are opposed to any behavior to create misleading or harmful contents of real persons, and are interested in applying our technique for advancing forgery detection,” write the researchers. “Currently, the videos generated by this method still contain identifiable artifacts, and the numerical analysis shows that there’s still a gap to achieve the authenticity of real videos.”

VASA-1 is only a research demonstration, but Microsoft is far from the only group developing similar technology. If the recent history of generative AI is any guide, it’s potentially only a matter of time before similar technology becomes open source and freely available—and they will very likely continue to improve in realism over time.

Microsoft’s VASA-1 can deepfake a person with one photo and one audio track Read More »

netflix-doc-accused-of-using-ai-to-manipulate-true-crime-story

Netflix doc accused of using AI to manipulate true crime story

AI, AI images, AI-generated images, Artificial Intelligence, Jennifer pan, netflix, Policy, raw tv, True Crime, true crime documentary, what Jennifer did / /

Everything is not as it seems —

Producer remained vague about whether AI was used to edit photos.

–

A cropped image showing Raw TV's poster for the Netflix documentary <em>What Jennifer Did</em>, which features a long front tooth that leads critics to believe it was AI-generated.” src=”https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/What-Jennifer-Did-Netflix-poster-cropped-800×450.jpg”></img><figcaption> <p><a data-height=Enlarge / A cropped image showing Raw TV’s poster for the Netflix documentary What Jennifer Did, which features a long front tooth that leads critics to believe it was AI-generated.

An executive producer of the Netflix hit What Jennifer Did has responded to accusations that the true crime documentary used AI images when depicting Jennifer Pan, a woman currently imprisoned in Canada for orchestrating a murder-for-hire scheme targeting her parents.

What Jennifer Did shot to the top spot in Netflix’s global top 10 when it debuted in early April, attracting swarms of true crime fans who wanted to know more about why Pan paid hitmen $10,000 to murder her parents. But quickly the documentary became a source of controversy, as fans started noticing glaring flaws in images used in the movie, from weirdly mismatched earrings to her nose appearing to lack nostrils, the Daily Mail reported, in a post showing a plethora of examples of images from the film.

Futurism was among the first to point out that these flawed images (around the 28-minute mark of the documentary) “have all the hallmarks of an AI-generated photo, down to mangled hands and fingers, misshapen facial features, morphed objects in the background, and a far-too-long front tooth.” The image with the long front tooth was even used in Netflix’s poster for the movie.

Because the movie’s credits do not mention any uses of AI, critics called out the documentary filmmakers for potentially embellishing a movie that’s supposed to be based on real-life events.

But Jeremy Grimaldi—who is also the crime reporter who wrote a book on the case and provided the documentary with research and police footage—told the Toronto Star that the images were not AI-generated.

Grimaldi confirmed that all images of Pan used in the movie were real photos. He said that some of the images were edited, though, not to blur the lines between truth and fiction, but to protect the identity of the source of the images.

“Any filmmaker will use different tools, like Photoshop, in films,” Grimaldi told The Star. “The photos of Jennifer are real photos of her. The foreground is exactly her. The background has been anonymized to protect the source.”

While Grimaldi’s comments provide some assurance that the photos are edited versions of real photos of Pan, they are also vague enough to obscure whether AI was among the “different tools” used to edit the photos.

One photographer, Joe Foley, wrote in a post for Creative Bloq that he thought “documentary makers may have attempted to enhance old low-resolution images using AI-powered upscaling or photo restoration software to try to make them look clearer on a TV screen.”

“The problem is that even the best AI software can only take a poor-quality image so far, and such programs tend to over sharpen certain lines, resulting in strange artifacts,” Foley said.

Foley suggested that Netflix should have “at the very least” clarified that images had been altered “to avoid this kind of backlash,” noting that “any kind of manipulation of photos in a documentary is controversial because the whole point is to present things as they were.”

Hollywood’s increasing use of AI has indeed been controversial, with screenwriters’ unions opposing AI tools as “plagiarism machines” and artists stirring recent backlash over the “experimental” use of AI art in a horror film. Even using AI for a movie poster, as Civil War did, is enough to generate controversy, the Hollywood Reporter reported.

Neither Raw TV, the production company behind What Jennifer Did, nor Netflix responded to Ars’ request for comment.

Netflix doc accused of using AI to manipulate true crime story Read More »

llms-keep-leaping-with-llama-3,-meta’s-newest-open-weights-ai-model

LLMs keep leaping with Llama 3, Meta’s newest open-weights AI model

AI, AI assistants, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, copilot, Google Gemini, LLaMA, Llama 2, Llama 3, machine learning, Meta, Meta AI Assistant, microsoft, Microsoft Copilot, Open Source, open weights, openai / /

computer-powered word generator —

Zuckerberg says new AI model “was still learning” when Meta stopped training.

–

A group of pink llamas on a pixelated background.

On Thursday, Meta unveiled early versions of its Llama 3 open-weights AI model that can be used to power text composition, code generation, or chatbots. It also announced that its Meta AI Assistant is now available on a website and is going to be integrated into its major social media apps, intensifying the company’s efforts to position its products against other AI assistants like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, and Google’s Gemini.

Like its predecessor, Llama 2, Llama 3 is notable for being a freely available, open-weights large language model (LLM) provided by a major AI company. Llama 3 technically does not quality as “open source” because that term has a specific meaning in software (as we have mentioned in other coverage), and the industry has not yet settled on terminology for AI model releases that ship either code or weights with restrictions (you can read Llama 3’s license here) or that ship without providing training data. We typically call these releases “open weights” instead.

At the moment, Llama 3 is available in two parameter sizes: 8 billion (8B) and 70 billion (70B), both of which are available as free downloads through Meta’s website with a sign-up. Llama 3 comes in two versions: pre-trained (basically the raw, next-token-prediction model) and instruction-tuned (fine-tuned to follow user instructions). Each has a 8,192 token context limit.

A screenshot of the Meta AI Assistant website on April 18, 2024.

Enlarge / A screenshot of the Meta AI Assistant website on April 18, 2024.

Benj Edwards

Meta trained both models on two custom-built, 24,000-GPU clusters. In a podcast interview with Dwarkesh Patel, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company trained the 70B model with around 15 trillion tokens of data. Throughout the process, the model never reached “saturation” (that is, it never hit a wall in terms of capability increases). Eventually, Meta pulled the plug and moved on to training other models.

“I guess our prediction going in was that it was going to asymptote more, but even by the end it was still leaning. We probably could have fed it more tokens, and it would have gotten somewhat better,” Zuckerberg said on the podcast.

Meta also announced that it is currently training a 400B parameter version of Llama 3, which some experts like Nvidia’s Jim Fan think may perform in the same league as GPT-4 Turbo, Claude 3 Opus, and Gemini Ultra on benchmarks like MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, and MATH.

Speaking of benchmarks, we have devoted many words in the past to explaining how frustratingly imprecise benchmarks can be when applied to large language models due to issues like training contamination (that is, including benchmark test questions in the training dataset), cherry-picking on the part of vendors, and an inability to capture AI’s general usefulness in an interactive session with chat-tuned models.

But, as expected, Meta provided some benchmarks for Llama 3 that list results from MMLU (undergraduate level knowledge), GSM-8K (grade-school math), HumanEval (coding), GPQA (graduate-level questions), and MATH (math word problems). These show the 8B model performing well compared to open-weights models like Google’s Gemma 7B and Mistral 7B Instruct, and the 70B model also held its own against Gemini Pro 1.5 and Claude 3 Sonnet.

A chart of instruction-tuned Llama 3 8B and 70B benchmarks provided by Meta.

Enlarge / A chart of instruction-tuned Llama 3 8B and 70B benchmarks provided by Meta.

Meta says that the Llama 3 model has been enhanced with capabilities to understand coding (like Llama 2) and, for the first time, has been trained with both images and text—though it currently outputs only text. According to Reuters, Meta Chief Product Officer Chris Cox noted in an interview that more complex processing abilities (like executing multi-step plans) are expected in future updates to Llama 3, which will also support multimodal outputs—that is, both text and images.

Meta plans to host the Llama 3 models on a range of cloud platforms, making them accessible through AWS, Databricks, Google Cloud, and other major providers.

Also on Thursday, Meta announced that Llama 3 will become the new basis of the Meta AI virtual assistant, which the company first announced in September. The assistant will appear prominently in search features for Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and the aforementioned dedicated website that features a design similar to ChatGPT, including the ability to generate images in the same interface. The company also announced a partnership with Google to integrate real-time search results into the Meta AI assistant, adding to an existing partnership with Microsoft’s Bing.

LLMs keep leaping with Llama 3, Meta’s newest open-weights AI model Read More »

feds-appoint-“ai-doomer”-to-run-ai-safety-at-us-institute

Feds appoint “AI doomer” to run AI safety at US institute

AI, Policy / /

Confronting doom —

Former OpenAI researcher once predicted a 50 percent chance of AI killing all of us.

–

Feds appoint “AI doomer” to run AI safety at US institute

The US AI Safety Institute—part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—has finally announced its leadership team after much speculation.

Appointed as head of AI safety is Paul Christiano, a former OpenAI researcher who pioneered a foundational AI safety technique called reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), but is also known for predicting that “there’s a 50 percent chance AI development could end in ‘doom.'” While Christiano’s research background is impressive, some fear that by appointing a so-called “AI doomer,” NIST may be risking encouraging non-scientific thinking that many critics view as sheer speculation.

There have been rumors that NIST staffers oppose the hiring. A controversial VentureBeat report last month cited two anonymous sources claiming that, seemingly because of Christiano’s so-called “AI doomer” views, NIST staffers were “revolting.” Some staff members and scientists allegedly threatened to resign, VentureBeat reported, fearing “that Christiano’s association” with effective altruism and “longtermism could compromise the institute’s objectivity and integrity.”

NIST’s mission is rooted in advancing science by working to “promote US innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life.” Effective altruists believe in “using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible” and longtermists that “we should be doing much more to protect future generations,” both of which are more subjective and opinion-based.

On the Bankless podcast, Christiano shared his opinions last year that “there’s something like a 10–20 percent chance of AI takeover” that results in humans dying, and “overall, maybe you’re getting more up to a 50-50 chance of doom shortly after you have AI systems that are human level.”

“The most likely way we die involves—not AI comes out of the blue and kills everyone—but involves we have deployed a lot of AI everywhere… [And] if for some reason, God forbid, all these AI systems were trying to kill us, they would definitely kill us,” Christiano said.

Critics of so-called “AI doomers” have warned that focusing on any potentially overblown talk of hypothetical killer AI systems or existential AI risks may stop humanity from focusing on current perceived harms from AI, including environmental, privacy, ethics, and bias issues. Emily Bender, a University of Washington professor of computation linguistics who has warned about AI doomers thwarting important ethical work in the field, told Ars that because “weird AI doomer discourse” was included in Joe Biden’s AI executive order, “NIST has been directed to worry about these fantasy scenarios” and “that’s the underlying problem” leading to Christiano’s appointment.

“I think that NIST probably had the opportunity to take it a different direction,” Bender told Ars. “And it’s unfortunate that they didn’t.”

As head of AI safety, Christiano will seemingly have to monitor for current and potential risks. He will “design and conduct tests of frontier AI models, focusing on model evaluations for capabilities of national security concern,” steer processes for evaluations, and implement “risk mitigations to enhance frontier model safety and security,” the Department of Commerce’s press release said.

Christiano has experience mitigating AI risks. He left OpenAI to found the Alignment Research Center (ARC), which the Commerce Department described as “a nonprofit research organization that seeks to align future machine learning systems with human interests by furthering theoretical research.” Part of ARC’s mission is to test if AI systems are evolving to manipulate or deceive humans, ARC’s website said. ARC also conducts research to help AI systems scale “gracefully.”

Because of Christiano’s research background, some people think he is a good choice to helm the safety institute, such as Divyansh Kaushik, an associate director for emerging technologies and national security at the Federation of American Scientists. On X (formerly Twitter), Kaushik wrote that the safety institute is designed to mitigate chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks from AI, and Christiano is “extremely qualified” for testing those AI models. Kaushik cautioned, however, that “if there’s truth to NIST scientists threatening to quit” over Christiano’s appointment, “obviously that would be serious if true.”

The Commerce Department does not comment on its staffing, so it’s unclear if anyone actually resigned or plans to resign over Christiano’s appointment. Since the announcement was made, Ars was not able to find any public announcements from NIST staffers suggesting that they might be considering stepping down.

In addition to Christiano, the safety institute’s leadership team will include Mara Quintero Campbell, a Commerce Department official who led projects on COVID response and CHIPS Act implementation, as acting chief operating officer and chief of staff. Adam Russell, an expert focused on human-AI teaming, forecasting, and collective intelligence, will serve as chief vision officer. Rob Reich, a human-centered AI expert on leave from Stanford University, will be a senior advisor. And Mark Latonero, a former White House global AI policy expert who helped draft Biden’s AI executive order, will be head of international engagement.

“To safeguard our global leadership on responsible AI and ensure we’re equipped to fulfill our mission to mitigate the risks of AI and harness its benefits, we need the top talent our nation has to offer,” Gina Raimondo, US Secretary of Commerce, said in the press release. “That is precisely why we’ve selected these individuals, who are the best in their fields, to join the US AI Safety Institute executive leadership team.”

VentureBeat’s report claimed that Raimondo directly appointed Christiano.

Bender told Ars that there’s no advantage to NIST including “doomsday scenarios” in its research on “how government and non-government agencies are using automation.”

“The fundamental problem with the AI safety narrative is that it takes people out of the picture,” Bender told Ars. “But the things we need to be worrying about are what people do with technology, not what technology autonomously does.”

Feds appoint “AI doomer” to run AI safety at US institute Read More »

words-are-flowing-out-like-endless-rain:-recapping-a-busy-week-of-llm-news

Words are flowing out like endless rain: Recapping a busy week of LLM news

AI, Anthropic, Biz & IT, Chatbot Arena, chatgpt, chatgtp, Claude 3, Claude 3 Opus, Claude 3 Sonnet, Gemini, Gemini 1.5, Google Gemini, GPT-4, GPT-4-turbo, large language models, machine learning, Meta, Mistral, Mixtral, Mixtral 8x22B, openai, RECAP, Simon Willison, whirlwind / /

many things frequently —

Gemini 1.5 Pro launch, new version of GPT-4 Turbo, new Mistral model, and more.

–

An image of a boy amazed by flying letters.

Enlarge / An image of a boy amazed by flying letters.

Some weeks in AI news are eerily quiet, but during others, getting a grip on the week’s events feels like trying to hold back the tide. This week has seen three notable large language model (LLM) releases: Google Gemini Pro 1.5 hit general availability with a free tier, OpenAI shipped a new version of GPT-4 Turbo, and Mistral released a new openly licensed LLM, Mixtral 8x22B. All three of those launches happened within 24 hours starting on Tuesday.

With the help of software engineer and independent AI researcher Simon Willison (who also wrote about this week’s hectic LLM launches on his own blog), we’ll briefly cover each of the three major events in roughly chronological order, then dig into some additional AI happenings this week.

Gemini Pro 1.5 general release

On Tuesday morning Pacific time, Google announced that its Gemini 1.5 Pro model (which we first covered in February) is now available in 180-plus countries, excluding Europe, via the Gemini API in a public preview. This is Google’s most powerful public LLM so far, and it’s available in a free tier that permits up to 50 requests a day.

It supports up to 1 million tokens of input context. As Willison notes in his blog, Gemini 1.5 Pro’s API price at $7/million input tokens and $21/million output tokens costs a little less than GPT-4 Turbo (priced at $10/million in and $30/million out) and more than Claude 3 Sonnet (Anthropic’s mid-tier LLM, priced at $3/million in and $15/million out).

Notably, Gemini 1.5 Pro includes native audio (speech) input processing that allows users to upload audio or video prompts, a new File API for handling files, the ability to add custom system instructions (system prompts) for guiding model responses, and a JSON mode for structured data extraction.

“Majorly Improved” GPT-4 Turbo launch

A GPT-4 Turbo performance chart provided by OpenAI.

Enlarge / A GPT-4 Turbo performance chart provided by OpenAI.

Just a bit later than Google’s 1.5 Pro launch on Tuesday, OpenAI announced that it was rolling out a “majorly improved” version of GPT-4 Turbo (a model family originally launched in November) called “gpt-4-turbo-2024-04-09.” It integrates multimodal GPT-4 Vision processing (recognizing the contents of images) directly into the model, and it initially launched through API access only.

Then on Thursday, OpenAI announced that the new GPT-4 Turbo model had just become available for paid ChatGPT users. OpenAI said that the new model improves “capabilities in writing, math, logical reasoning, and coding” and shared a chart that is not particularly useful in judging capabilities (that they later updated). The company also provided an example of an alleged improvement, saying that when writing with ChatGPT, the AI assistant will use “more direct, less verbose, and use more conversational language.”

The vague nature of OpenAI’s GPT-4 Turbo announcements attracted some confusion and criticism online. On X, Willison wrote, “Who will be the first LLM provider to publish genuinely useful release notes?” In some ways, this is a case of “AI vibes” again, as we discussed in our lament about the poor state of LLM benchmarks during the debut of Claude 3. “I’ve not actually spotted any definite differences in quality [related to GPT-4 Turbo],” Willison told us directly in an interview.

The update also expanded GPT-4’s knowledge cutoff to April 2024, although some people are reporting it achieves this through stealth web searches in the background, and others on social media have reported issues with date-related confabulations.

Mistral’s mysterious Mixtral 8x22B release

An illustration of a robot holding a French flag, figuratively reflecting the rise of AI in France due to Mistral. It's hard to draw a picture of an LLM, so a robot will have to do.

Enlarge / An illustration of a robot holding a French flag, figuratively reflecting the rise of AI in France due to Mistral. It’s hard to draw a picture of an LLM, so a robot will have to do.

Not to be outdone, on Tuesday night, French AI company Mistral launched its latest openly licensed model, Mixtral 8x22B, by tweeting a torrent link devoid of any documentation or commentary, much like it has done with previous releases.

The new mixture-of-experts (MoE) release weighs in with a larger parameter count than its previously most-capable open model, Mixtral 8x7B, which we covered in December. It’s rumored to potentially be as capable as GPT-4 (In what way, you ask? Vibes). But that has yet to be seen.

“The evals are still rolling in, but the biggest open question right now is how well Mixtral 8x22B shapes up,” Willison told Ars. “If it’s in the same quality class as GPT-4 and Claude 3 Opus, then we will finally have an openly licensed model that’s not significantly behind the best proprietary ones.”

This release has Willison most excited, saying, “If that thing really is GPT-4 class, it’s wild, because you can run that on a (very expensive) laptop. I think you need 128GB of MacBook RAM for it, twice what I have.”

The new Mixtral is not listed on Chatbot Arena yet, Willison noted, because Mistral has not released a fine-tuned model for chatting yet. It’s still a raw, predict-the-next token LLM. “There’s at least one community instruction tuned version floating around now though,” says Willison.

Chatbot Arena Leaderboard shake-ups

A Chatbot Arena Leaderboard screenshot taken on April 12, 2024.

Enlarge / A Chatbot Arena Leaderboard screenshot taken on April 12, 2024.

Benj Edwards

This week’s LLM news isn’t limited to just the big names in the field. There have also been rumblings on social media about the rising performance of open source models like Cohere’s Command R+, which reached position 6 on the LMSYS Chatbot Arena Leaderboard—the highest-ever ranking for an open-weights model.

And for even more Chatbot Arena action, apparently the new version of GPT-4 Turbo is proving competitive with Claude 3 Opus. The two are still in a statistical tie, but GPT-4 Turbo recently pulled ahead numerically. (In March, we reported when Claude 3 first numerically pulled ahead of GPT-4 Turbo, which was then the first time another AI model had surpassed a GPT-4 family model member on the leaderboard.)

Regarding this fierce competition among LLMs—of which most of the muggle world is unaware and will likely never be—Willison told Ars, “The past two months have been a whirlwind—we finally have not just one but several models that are competitive with GPT-4.” We’ll see if OpenAI’s rumored release of GPT-5 later this year will restore the company’s technological lead, we note, which once seemed insurmountable. But for now, Willison says, “OpenAI are no longer the undisputed leaders in LLMs.”

Words are flowing out like endless rain: Recapping a busy week of LLM news Read More »

intel’s-“gaudi-3”-ai-accelerator-chip-may-give-nvidia’s-h100-a-run-for-its-money

Intel’s “Gaudi 3” AI accelerator chip may give Nvidia’s H100 a run for its money

AI, AI chips, B200, Biz & IT, Blackwell, chatgpt, chatgtp, Gaudi 3, H100, H200, intel, Intel Gaudi, machine learning, NVIDIA, Nvidia Blackwell, openai / /

Adventures in Matrix Multiplication —

Intel claims 50% more speed when running AI language models vs. the market leader.

–

An Intel handout photo of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

Enlarge / An Intel handout photo of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

On Tuesday, Intel revealed a new AI accelerator chip called Gaudi 3 at its Vision 2024 event in Phoenix. With strong claimed performance while running large language models (like those that power ChatGPT), the company has positioned Gaudi 3 as an alternative to Nvidia’s H100, a popular data center GPU that has been subject to shortages, though apparently that is easing somewhat.

Compared to Nvidia’s H100 chip, Intel projects a 50 percent faster training time on Gaudi 3 for both OpenAI’s GPT-3 175B LLM and the 7-billion parameter version of Meta’s Llama 2. In terms of inference (running the trained model to get outputs), Intel claims that its new AI chip delivers 50 percent faster performance than H100 for Llama 2 and Falcon 180B, which are both relatively popular open-weights models.

Intel is targeting the H100 because of its high market share, but the chip isn’t Nvidia’s most powerful AI accelerator chip in the pipeline. Announcements of the H200 and the Blackwell B200 have since surpassed the H100 on paper, but neither of those chips is out yet (the H200 is expected in the second quarter of 2024—basically any day now).

Meanwhile, the aforementioned H100 supply issues have been a major headache for tech companies and AI researchers who have to fight for access to any chips that can train AI models. This has led several tech companies like Microsoft, Meta, and OpenAI (rumor has it) to seek their own AI-accelerator chip designs, although that custom silicon is typically manufactured by either Intel or TSMC. Google has its own line of tensor processing units (TPUs) that it has been using internally since 2015.

Given those issues, Intel’s Gaudi 3 may be a potentially attractive alternative to the H100 if Intel can hit an ideal price (which Intel has not provided, but an H100 reportedly costs around $30,000–$40,000) and maintain adequate production. AMD also manufactures a competitive range of AI chips, such as the AMD Instinct MI300 Series, that sell for around $10,000–$15,000.

Gaudi 3 performance

An Intel handout featuring specifications of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

Enlarge / An Intel handout featuring specifications of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

Intel says the new chip builds upon the architecture of its predecessor, Gaudi 2, by featuring two identical silicon dies connected by a high-bandwidth connection. Each die contains a central cache memory of 48 megabytes, surrounded by four matrix multiplication engines and 32 programmable tensor processor cores, bringing the total cores to 64.

The chipmaking giant claims that Gaudi 3 delivers double the AI compute performance of Gaudi 2 using 8-bit floating-point infrastructure, which has become crucial for training transformer models. The chip also offers a fourfold boost for computations using the BFloat 16-number format. Gaudi 3 also features 128GB of the less expensive HBMe2 memory capacity (which may contribute to price competitiveness) and features 3.7TB of memory bandwidth.

Since data centers are well-known to be power hungry, Intel emphasizes the power efficiency of Gaudi 3, claiming 40 percent greater inference power-efficiency across Llama 7B and 70B parameters, and Falcon 180B parameter models compared to Nvidia’s H100. Eitan Medina, chief operating officer of Intel’s Habana Labs, attributes this advantage to Gaudi’s large-matrix math engines, which he claims require significantly less memory bandwidth compared to other architectures.

Gaudi vs. Blackwell

An Intel handout photo of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

Enlarge / An Intel handout photo of the Gaudi 3 AI accelerator.

Last month, we covered the splashy launch of Nvidia’s Blackwell architecture, including the B200 GPU, which Nvidia claims will be the world’s most powerful AI chip. It seems natural, then, to compare what we know about Nvidia’s highest-performing AI chip to the best of what Intel can currently produce.

For starters, Gaudi 3 is being manufactured using TSMC’s N5 process technology, according to IEEE Spectrum, narrowing the gap between Intel and Nvidia in terms of semiconductor fabrication technology. The upcoming Nvidia Blackwell chip will use a custom N4P process, which reportedly offers modest performance and efficiency improvements over N5.

Gaudi 3’s use of HBM2e memory (as we mentioned above) is notable compared to the more expensive HBM3 or HBM3e used in competing chips, offering a balance of performance and cost-efficiency. This choice seems to emphasize Intel’s strategy to compete not only on performance but also on price.

As far as raw performance comparisons between Gaudi 3 and the B200, that can’t be known until the chips have been released and benchmarked by a third party.

As the race to power the tech industry’s thirst for AI computation heats up, IEEE Spectrum notes that the next generation of Intel’s Gaudi chip, code-named Falcon Shores, remains a point of interest. It also remains to be seen whether Intel will continue to rely on TSMC’s technology or leverage its own foundry business and upcoming nanosheet transistor technology to gain a competitive edge in the AI accelerator market.

Intel’s “Gaudi 3” AI accelerator chip may give Nvidia’s H100 a run for its money Read More »

us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

AI, Artificial Intelligence, copyright law, generative ai, generative ai disclosure act, openai, Policy, Stability AI, US Copyright Office / /

Who’s got the receipts? —

Proposed law would require more transparency from AI companies.

–

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material

Amid a flurry of lawsuits over AI models’ training data, US Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a bill that would require AI companies to disclose exactly which copyrighted works are included in datasets training AI systems.

The Generative AI Disclosure Act “would require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to the release of a new generative AI system with regard to all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset for that system,” Schiff said in a press release.

The bill is retroactive and would apply to all AI systems available today, as well as to all AI systems to come. It would take effect 180 days after it’s enacted, requiring anyone who creates or alters a training set not only to list works referenced by the dataset, but also to provide a URL to the dataset within 30 days before the AI system is released to the public. That URL would presumably give creators a way to double-check if their materials have been used and seek any credit or compensation available before the AI tools are in use.

All notices would be kept in a publicly available online database.

Schiff described the act as championing “innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets.”

“This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness,” Schiff said.

Currently, creators who don’t have access to training datasets rely on AI models’ outputs to figure out if their copyrighted works may have been included in training various AI systems. The New York Times, for example, prompted ChatGPT to spit out excerpts of its articles, relying on a tactic to identify training data by asking ChatGPT to produce lines from specific articles, which OpenAI has curiously described as “hacking.”

Under Schiff’s law, The New York Times would need to consult the database to ID all articles used to train ChatGPT or any other AI system.

Any AI maker who violates the act would risk a “civil penalty in an amount not less than $5,000,” the proposed bill said.

At a hearing on artificial intelligence and intellectual property, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)—who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet—told Schiff that his subcommittee would consider the “thoughtful” bill.

Schiff told the subcommittee that the bill is “only a first step” toward “ensuring that at a minimum” creators are “aware of when their work contributes to AI training datasets,” saying that he would “welcome the opportunity to work with members of the subcommittee” on advancing the bill.

“The rapid development of generative AI technologies has outpaced existing copyright laws, which has led to widespread use of creative content to train generative AI models without consent or compensation,” Schiff warned at the hearing.

In Schiff’s press release, Meredith Stiehm, president of the Writers Guild of America West, joined leaders from other creative groups celebrating the bill as an “important first step” for rightsholders.

“Greater transparency and guardrails around AI are necessary to protect writers and other creators” and address “the unprecedented and unauthorized use of copyrighted materials to train generative AI systems,” Stiehm said.

Until the thorniest AI copyright questions are settled, Ken Doroshow, a chief legal officer for the Recording Industry Association of America, suggested that Schiff’s bill filled an important gap by introducing “comprehensive and transparent recordkeeping” that would provide “one of the most fundamental building blocks of effective enforcement of creators’ rights.”

A senior adviser for the Human Artistry Campaign, Moiya McTier, went further, celebrating the bill as stopping AI companies from “exploiting” artists and creators.

“AI companies should stop hiding the ball when they copy creative works into AI systems and embrace clear rules of the road for recordkeeping that create a level and transparent playing field for the development and licensing of genuinely innovative applications and tools,” McTier said.

AI copyright guidance coming soon

While courts weigh copyright questions raised by artists, book authors, and newspapers, the US Copyright Office announced in March that it would be issuing guidance later this year, but the office does not seem to be prioritizing questions on AI training.

Instead, the Copyright Office will focus first on issuing guidance on deepfakes and AI outputs. This spring, the office will release a report “analyzing the impact of AI on copyright” of “digital replicas, or the use of AI to digitally replicate individuals’ appearances, voices, or other aspects of their identities.” Over the summer, another report will focus on “the copyrightability of works incorporating AI-generated material.”

Regarding “the topic of training AI models on copyrighted works as well as any licensing considerations and liability issues,” the Copyright Office did not provide a timeline for releasing guidance, only confirming that their “goal is to finalize the entire report by the end of the fiscal year.”

Once guidance is available, it could sway court opinions, although courts do not necessarily have to apply Copyright Office guidance when weighing cases.

The Copyright Office’s aspirational timeline does seem to be ahead of when at least some courts can be expected to decide on some of the biggest copyright questions for some creators. The class-action lawsuit raised by book authors against OpenAI, for example, is not expected to be resolved until February 2025, and the New York Times’ lawsuit is likely on a similar timeline. However, artists suing Stability AI face a hearing on that AI company’s motion to dismiss this May.

US lawmaker proposes a public database of all AI training material Read More »

new-ai-music-generator-udio-synthesizes-realistic-music-on-demand

New AI music generator Udio synthesizes realistic music on demand

AI, audio synthesis, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, machine learning, music, music synthesis, openai, Suno, Udio / /

Battle of the AI bands —

But it still needs trial and error to generate high-quality results.

–

A screenshot of AI-generated songs listed on Udio on April 10, 2024.

Enlarge / A screenshot of AI-generated songs listed on Udio on April 10, 2024.

Benj Edwards

Between 2002 and 2005, I ran a music website where visitors could submit song titles that I would write and record a silly song around. In the liner notes for my first CD release in 2003, I wrote about a day when computers would potentially put me out of business, churning out music automatically at a pace I could not match. While I don’t actively post music on that site anymore, that day is almost here.

On Wednesday, a group of ex-DeepMind employees launched Udio, a new AI music synthesis service that can create novel high-fidelity musical audio from written prompts, including user-provided lyrics. It’s similar to Suno, which we covered on Monday. With some key human input, Udio can create facsimiles of human-produced music in genres like country, barbershop quartet, German pop, classical, hard rock, hip hop, show tunes, and more. It’s currently free to use during a beta period.

Udio is also freaking out some musicians on Reddit. As we mentioned in our Suno piece, Udio is exactly the kind of AI-powered music generation service that over 200 musical artists were afraid of when they signed an open protest letter last week.

But as impressive as the Udio songs first seem from a technical AI-generation standpoint (not necessarily judging by musical merit), its generation capability isn’t perfect. We experimented with its creation tool and the results felt less impressive than those created by Suno. The high-quality musical samples showcased on Udio’s site likely resulted from a lot of creative human input (such as human-written lyrics) and cherry-picking the best compositional parts of songs out of many generations. In fact, Udio lays out a five-step workflow to build a 1.5-minute-long song in a FAQ.

For example, we created an Ars Technica “Moonshark” song on Udio using the same prompt as one we used previously with Suno. In its raw form, the results sound half-baked and almost nightmarish (here is the Suno version for comparison). It’s also a lot shorter by default at 32 seconds compared to Suno’s 1-minute and 32-second output. But Udio allows songs to be extended, or you can try generating a poor result again with different prompts for different results.

After registering a Udio account, anyone can create a track by entering a text prompt that can include lyrics, a story direction, and musical genre tags. Udio then tackles the task in two stages. First, it utilizes a large language model (LLM) similar to ChatGPT to generate lyrics (if necessary) based on the provided prompt. Next, it synthesizes music using a method that Udio does not disclose, but it’s likely a diffusion model, similar to Stability AI’s Stable Audio.

From the given prompt, Udio’s AI model generates two distinct song snippets for you to choose from. You can then publish the song for the Udio community, download the audio or video file to share on other platforms, or directly share it on social media. Other Udio users can also remix or build on existing songs. Udio’s terms of service say that the company claims no rights over the musical generations and that they can be used for commercial purposes.

Although the Udio team has not revealed the specific details of its model or training data (which is likely filled with copyrighted material), it told Tom’s Guide that the system has built-in measures to identify and block tracks that too closely resemble the work of specific artists, ensuring that the generated music remains original.

And that brings us back to humans, some of whom are not taking the onset of AI-generated music very well. “I gotta be honest, this is depressing as hell,” wrote one Reddit commenter in a thread about Udio. “I’m still broadly optimistic that music will be fine in the long run somehow. But like, why do this? Why automate art?”

We’ll hazard an answer by saying that replicating art is a key target for AI research because the results can be inaccurate and imprecise and still seem notable or gee-whiz amazing, which is a key characteristic of generative AI. It’s flashy and impressive-looking while allowing for a general lack of quantitative rigor. We’ve already seen AI come for still images, video, and text with varied results regarding representative accuracy. Fully composed musical recordings seem to be next on the list of AI hills to (approximately) conquer, and the competition is heating up.

New AI music generator Udio synthesizes realistic music on demand Read More »

elon-musk:-ai-will-be-smarter-than-any-human-around-the-end-of-next-year

Elon Musk: AI will be smarter than any human around the end of next year

AI, Biz & IT, elon musk, Grady Booch, machine learning, Social Media, superintelligence, Twitter, X / /

smarter than the average bear —

While Musk says superintelligence is coming soon, one critic says prediction is “batsh*t crazy.”

–

Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the X (formerly Twitter) platform, attends a symposium on fighting antisemitism titled 'Never Again : Lip Service or Deep Conversation' in Krakow, Poland on January 22nd, 2024. Musk, who was invited to Poland by the European Jewish Association (EJA) has visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp earlier that day, ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto)

Enlarge / Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the X (formerly Twitter) platform on January 22, 2024.

On Monday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk predicted the imminent rise in AI superintelligence during a live interview streamed on the social media platform X. “My guess is we’ll have AI smarter than any one human probably around the end of next year,” Musk said in his conversation with hedge fund manager Nicolai Tangen.

Just prior to that, Tangen had asked Musk, “What’s your take on where we are in the AI race just now?” Musk told Tangen that AI “is the fastest advancing technology I’ve seen of any kind, and I’ve seen a lot of technology.” He described computers dedicated to AI increasing in capability by “a factor of 10 every year, if not every six to nine months.”

Musk made the prediction with an asterisk, saying that shortages of AI chips and high AI power demands could limit AI’s capability until those issues are resolved. “Last year, it was chip-constrained,” Musk told Tangen. “People could not get enough Nvidia chips. This year, it’s transitioning to a voltage transformer supply. In a year or two, it’s just electricity supply.”

But not everyone is convinced that Musk’s crystal ball is free of cracks. Grady Booch, a frequent critic of AI hype on social media who is perhaps best known for his work in software architecture, told Ars in an interview, “Keep in mind that Mr. Musk has a profoundly bad record at predicting anything associated with AI; back in 2016, he promised his cars would ship with FSD safety level 5, and here we are, closing on an a decade later, still waiting.”

Creating artificial intelligence at least as smart as a human (frequently called “AGI” for artificial general intelligence) is often seen as inevitable among AI proponents, but there’s no broad consensus on exactly when that milestone will be reached—or on the exact definition of AGI, for that matter.

“If you define AGI as smarter than the smartest human, I think it’s probably next year, within two years,” Musk added in the interview with Tangen while discussing AGI timelines.

Even with uncertainties about AGI, that hasn’t kept companies from trying. ChatGPT creator OpenAI, which launched with Musk as a co-founder in 2015, lists developing AGI as its main goal. Musk has not been directly associated with OpenAI for years (unless you count a recent lawsuit against the company), but last year, he took aim at the business of large language models by forming a new company called xAI. Its main product, Grok, functions similarly to ChatGPT and is integrated into the X social media platform.

Booch gives credit to Musk’s business successes but casts doubt on his forecasting ability. “Albeit a brilliant if not rapacious businessman, Mr. Musk vastly overestimates both the history as well as the present of AI while simultaneously diminishing the exquisite uniqueness of human intelligence,” says Booch. “So in short, his prediction is—to put it in scientific terms—batshit crazy.”

So when will we get AI that’s smarter than a human? Booch says there’s no real way to know at the moment. “I reject the framing of any question that asks when AI will surpass humans in intelligence because it is a question filled with ambiguous terms and considerable emotional and historic baggage,” he says. “We are a long, long way from understanding the design that would lead us there.”

We also asked Hugging Face AI researcher Dr. Margaret Mitchell to weigh in on Musk’s prediction. “Intelligence … is not a single value where you can make these direct comparisons and have them mean something,” she told us in an interview. “There will likely never be agreement on comparisons between human and machine intelligence.”

But even with that uncertainty, she feels there is one aspect of AI she can more reliably predict: “I do agree that neural network models will reach a point where men in positions of power and influence, particularly ones with investments in AI, will declare that AI is smarter than humans. By end of next year, sure. That doesn’t sound far off base to me.”

Elon Musk: AI will be smarter than any human around the end of next year Read More »