Meta

Debate over “open source AI” term brings new push to formalize definition

AI, AI regulation, AI workshops, All Things Open, Biz & IT, chatgpt, chatgtp, flux, free software, GPT-4o, machine learning, Meta, Open Source, open source AI, Open Source Initiative, open weights, Open weights AI, openai, OSI, Raleigh, SB-1047, source available / Blake Jones / August 27, 2024

Enlarge / A man peers over a glass partition, seeking transparency.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) recently unveiled its latest draft definition for “open source AI,” aiming to clarify the ambiguous use of the term in the fast-moving field. The move comes as some companies like Meta release trained AI language model weights and code with usage restrictions while using the “open source” label. This has sparked intense debates among free-software advocates about what truly constitutes “open source” in the context of AI.

For instance, Meta’s Llama 3 model, while freely available, doesn’t meet the traditional open source criteria as defined by the OSI for software because it imposes license restrictions on usage due to company size or what type of content is produced with the model. The AI image generator Flux is another “open” model that is not truly open source. Because of this type of ambiguity, we’ve typically described AI models that include code or weights with restrictions or lack accompanying training data with alternative terms like “open-weights” or “source-available.”

To address the issue formally, the OSI—which is well-known for its advocacy for open software standards—has assembled a group of about 70 participants, including researchers, lawyers, policymakers, and activists. Representatives from major tech companies like Meta, Google, and Amazon also joined the effort. The group’s current draft (version 0.0.9) definition of open source AI emphasizes “four fundamental freedoms” reminiscent of those defining free software: giving users of the AI system permission to use it for any purpose without permission, study how it works, modify it for any purpose, and share with or without modifications.

By establishing clear criteria for open source AI, the organization hopes to provide a benchmark against which AI systems can be evaluated. This will likely help developers, researchers, and users make more informed decisions about the AI tools they create, study, or use.

Truly open source AI may also shed light on potential software vulnerabilities of AI systems, since researchers will be able to see how the AI models work behind the scenes. Compare this approach with an opaque system such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, which is more than just a GPT-4o large language model with a fancy interface—it’s a proprietary system of interlocking models and filters, and its precise architecture is a closely guarded secret.

OSI’s project timeline indicates that a stable version of the “open source AI” definition is expected to be announced in October at the All Things Open 2024 event in Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Permissionless innovation”

In a press release from May, the OSI emphasized the importance of defining what open source AI really means. “AI is different from regular software and forces all stakeholders to review how the Open Source principles apply to this space,” said Stefano Maffulli, executive director of the OSI. “OSI believes that everybody deserves to maintain agency and control of the technology. We also recognize that markets flourish when clear definitions promote transparency, collaboration and permissionless innovation.”

The organization’s most recent draft definition extends beyond just the AI model or its weights, encompassing the entire system and its components.

For an AI system to qualify as open source, it must provide access to what the OSI calls the “preferred form to make modifications.” This includes detailed information about the training data, the full source code used for training and running the system, and the model weights and parameters. All these elements must be available under OSI-approved licenses or terms.

Notably, the draft doesn’t mandate the release of raw training data. Instead, it requires “data information”—detailed metadata about the training data and methods. This includes information on data sources, selection criteria, preprocessing techniques, and other relevant details that would allow a skilled person to re-create a similar system.

The “data information” approach aims to provide transparency and replicability without necessarily disclosing the actual dataset, ostensibly addressing potential privacy or copyright concerns while sticking to open source principles, though that particular point may be up for further debate.

“The most interesting thing about [the definition] is that they’re allowing training data to NOT be released,” said independent AI researcher Simon Willison in a brief Ars interview about the OSI’s proposal. “It’s an eminently pragmatic approach—if they didn’t allow that, there would be hardly any capable ‘open source’ models.”

Debate over “open source AI” term brings new push to formalize definition Read More »

RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine group can’t sue Meta for agreeing with CDC, judge rules

anti-vaccine, censorship, children's health defense, disinformation, facebook, First Amendment, free speech, Instagram, Meta, misinformation, Policy, robert f kennedy jr / Blake Jones / August 12, 2024

Enlarge / Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an anti-vaccine group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, has once again failed to convince a court that Meta acted as a state agent when censoring the group’s posts and ads on Facebook and Instagram.

In his opinion affirming a lower court’s dismissal, US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Eric Miller wrote that CHD failed to prove that Meta acted as an arm of the government in censoring posts. Concluding that Meta’s right to censor views that the platforms find “distasteful” is protected by the First Amendment, Miller denied CHD’s requested relief, which had included an injunction and civil monetary damages.

“Meta evidently believes that vaccines are safe and effective and that their use should be encouraged,” Miller wrote. “It does not lose the right to promote those views simply because they happen to be shared by the government.”

CHD told Reuters that the group “was disappointed with the decision and considering its legal options.”

The group first filed the complaint in 2020, arguing that Meta colluded with government officials to censor protected speech by labeling anti-vaccine posts as misleading or removing and shadowbanning CHD posts. This caused CHD’s traffic on the platforms to plummet, CHD claimed, and ultimately, its pages were removed from both platforms.

However, critically, Miller wrote, CHD did not allege that “the government was actually involved in the decisions to label CHD’s posts as ‘false’ or ‘misleading,’ the decision to put the warning label on CHD’s Facebook page, or the decisions to ‘demonetize’ or ‘shadow-ban.'”

“CHD has not alleged facts that allow us to infer that the government coerced Meta into implementing a specific policy,” Miller wrote.

Instead, Meta “was entitled to encourage” various “input from the government,” justifiably seeking vaccine-related information provided by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as it navigated complex content moderation decisions throughout the pandemic, Miller wrote.

Therefore, Meta’s actions against CHD were due to “Meta’s own ‘policy of censoring,’ not any provision of federal law,” Miller concluded. “The evidence suggested that Meta had independent incentives to moderate content and exercised its own judgment in so doing.”

None of CHD’s theories that Meta coordinated with officials to deprive “CHD of its constitutional rights” were plausible, Miller wrote, whereas the “innocent alternative”—”that Meta adopted the policy it did simply because” CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Meta “share the government’s view that vaccines are safe and effective”—appeared “more plausible.”

Meta “does not become an agent of the government just because it decides that the CDC sometimes has a point,” Miller wrote.

Equally not persuasive were CHD’s notions that Section 230 immunity—which shields platforms from liability for third-party content—”‘removed all legal barriers’ to the censorship of vaccine-related speech,” such that “Meta’s restriction of that content should be considered state action.”

“That Section 230 operates in the background to immunize Meta if it chooses to suppress vaccine misinformation—whether because it shares the government’s health concerns or for independent commercial reasons—does not transform Meta’s choice into state action,” Miller wrote.

One judge dissented over Section 230 concerns

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Daniel Collins defended CHD’s Section 230 claim, however, suggesting that the appeals court erred and should have granted CHD injunctive and declaratory relief from alleged censorship. CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender that the group was pleased the decision was not unanimous.

According to Collins, who like Miller is a Trump appointee, Meta could never have built its massive social platforms without Section 230 immunity, which grants platforms the ability to broadly censor viewpoints they disfavor.

It was “important to keep in mind” that “the vast practical power that Meta exercises over the speech of millions of others ultimately rests on a government-granted privilege to which Meta is not constitutionally entitled,” Collins wrote. And this power “makes a crucial difference in the state-action analysis.”

As Collins sees it, CHD could plausibly allege that Meta’s communications with government officials about vaccine-related misinformation targeted specific users, like the “disinformation dozen” that includes both CHD and Kennedy. In that case, it appears possible to Collins that Section 230 provides a potential opportunity for government to target speech that it disfavors through mechanisms provided by the platforms.

“Having specifically and purposefully created an immunized power for mega-platform operators to freely censor the speech of millions of persons on those platforms, the Government is perhaps unsurprisingly tempted to then try to influence particular uses of such dangerous levers against protected speech expressing viewpoints the Government does not like,” Collins warned.

He further argued that “Meta’s relevant First Amendment rights” do not “give Meta an unbounded freedom to work with the Government in suppressing speech on its platforms.” Disagreeing with the majority, he wrote that “in this distinctive scenario, applying the state-action doctrine promotes individual liberty by keeping the Government’s hands away from the tempting levers of censorship on these vast platforms.”

The majority agreed, however, that while Section 230 immunity “is undoubtedly a significant benefit to companies like Meta,” lawmakers’ threats to weaken Section 230 did not suggest that Meta’s anti-vaccine policy was coerced state action.

“Many companies rely, in one way or another, on a favorable regulatory environment or the goodwill of the government,” Miller wrote. “If that were enough for state action, every large government contractor would be a state actor. But that is not the law.”

RFK Jr’s anti-vaccine group can’t sue Meta for agreeing with CDC, judge rules Read More »

Meta to pay $1.4 billion settlement after Texas facial recognition complaint

ken paxton, Meta, Policy, syndication / Ryan Harris / July 30, 2024

data harvesting —

Facebook’s parent accused of gathering data from photos and videos without “informed consent.”

Stephanie Stacey and Hannah Murphy, Financial Times – Jul 30, 2024 4: 21 pm UTC

Facebook owner Meta has agreed to pay $1.4 billion to the state of Texas to settle claims that the company harvested millions of citizens’ biometric data without proper consent.

The settlement, to be paid over five years, is the largest ever obtained from an action brought by a single US state, said a statement from Attorney General Ken Paxton.

It also marks one of the largest penalties levied at Meta by regulators, second only to a $5 billion settlement it paid the US Federal Trade Commission in 2019 for the misuse of user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal.

The original complaint filed by Paxton in February 2022 accused Facebook’s now-closed facial recognition system of collecting biometric identifiers of “millions of Texans” from photos and videos posted on the platform without “informed consent.”

Meta launched a feature in 2011 called “tag suggestions” that recommended to users who to tag in photos and videos by scanning the “facial geometry” of those pictured, Paxton’s office said.

In 2021, a year before the lawsuit was filed, Meta announced it was shuttering its facial recognition system including the tag suggestions feature. It wiped the biometric data it had collected from 1 billion users, citing legal “uncertainty.”

The latest fine comes amid growing concern globally over privacy and data protection risks related to facial recognition, as well as algorithmic bias, although legislation is patchy, differing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In 2021, Facebook agreed to pay a $650 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit in Illinois under a state privacy law over similar allegations related to its face-tagging system.

“This historic settlement demonstrates our commitment to standing up to the world’s biggest technology companies and holding them accountable for breaking the law and violating Texans’ privacy rights,” Paxton said in a statement. “Any abuse of Texans’ sensitive data will be met with the full force of the law.”

Meta previously said that the claims were without merit. However, the company and Texas agreed at the end of May to settle the lawsuit, just weeks before a trial was set to begin.

A spokesperson for Meta said on Tuesday: “We are pleased to resolve this matter, and look forward to exploring future opportunities to deepen our business investments in Texas, including potentially developing data centers.”

Meta to pay $1.4 billion settlement after Texas facial recognition complaint Read More »

The first GPT-4-class AI model anyone can download has arrived: Llama 405B

AI, Anthropic, Anthropic Claude, Biz & IT, chatbots, chatgpt, chatgtp, Claude 3, GPT-4, GPT-4o, large language models, LLaMA, Llama 3, Llama 3.1, Llama 3.1 405B, machine learning, Meta, openai / Mike M. / July 23, 2024

A new llama emerges —

“Open source AI is the path forward,” says Mark Zuckerberg, misusing the term.

Benj Edwards – Jul 23, 2024 8: 01 pm UTC

A red llama in a blue desert illustration based on a photo.

In the AI world, there’s a buzz in the air about a new AI language model released Tuesday by Meta: Llama 3.1 405B. The reason? It’s potentially the first time anyone can download a GPT-4-class large language model (LLM) for free and run it on their own hardware. You’ll still need some beefy hardware: Meta says it can run on a “single server node,” which isn’t desktop PC-grade equipment. But it’s a provocative shot across the bow of “closed” AI model vendors such as OpenAI and Anthropic.

“Llama 3.1 405B is the first openly available model that rivals the top AI models when it comes to state-of-the-art capabilities in general knowledge, steerability, math, tool use, and multilingual translation,” says Meta. Company CEO Mark Zuckerberg calls 405B “the first frontier-level open source AI model.”

In the AI industry, “frontier model” is a term for an AI system designed to push the boundaries of current capabilities. In this case, Meta is positioning 405B among the likes of the industry’s top AI models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4o, Claude’s 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini 1.5 Pro.

A chart published by Meta suggests that 405B gets very close to matching the performance of GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in benchmarks like MMLU (undergraduate level knowledge), GSM8K (grade school math), and HumanEval (coding).

But as we’ve noted many times since March, these benchmarks aren’t necessarily scientifically sound or translate to the subjective experience of interacting with AI language models. In fact, this traditional slate of AI benchmarks is so generally useless to laypeople that even Meta’s PR department now just posts a few images of charts and doesn’t even try to explain them in any detail.

Enlarge / A Meta-provided chart that shows Llama 3.1 405B benchmark results versus other major AI models.

We’ve instead found that measuring the subjective experience of using a conversational AI model (through what might be called “vibemarking”) on A/B leaderboards like Chatbot Arena is a better way to judge new LLMs. In the absence of Chatbot Arena data, Meta has provided the results of its own human evaluations of 405B’s outputs that seem to show Meta’s new model holding its own against GPT-4 Turbo and Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

A Meta-provided chart that shows how humans rated Llama 3.1 405B's outputs compared to GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in its own studies. — Enlarge / A Meta-provided chart that shows how humans rated Llama 3.1 405B’s outputs compared to GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet in its own studies.

Whatever the benchmarks, early word on the street (after the model leaked on 4chan yesterday) seems to match the claim that 405B is roughly equivalent to GPT-4. It took a lot of expensive computer training time to get there—and money, of which the social media giant has plenty to burn. Meta trained the 405B model on over 15 trillion tokens of training data scraped from the web (then parsed, filtered, and annotated by Llama 2), using more than 16,000 H100 GPUs.

So what’s with the 405B name? In this case, “405B” means 405 billion parameters, and parameters are numerical values that store trained information in a neural network. More parameters translate to a larger neural network powering the AI model, which generally (but not always) means more capability, such as better ability to make contextual connections between concepts. But larger-parameter models have a tradeoff in needing more computing power (AKA “compute”) to run.

We’ve been expecting the release of a 400 billion-plus parameter model of the Llama 3 family since Meta gave word that it was training one in April, and today’s announcement isn’t just about the biggest member of the Llama 3 family: There’s an entirely new iteration of improved Llama models with the designation “Llama 3.1.” That includes upgraded versions of its smaller 8B and 70B models, which now feature multilingual support and an extended context length of 128,000 tokens (the “context length” is roughly the working memory capacity of the model, and “tokens” are chunks of data used by LLMs to process information).

Meta says that 405B is useful for long-form text summarization, multilingual conversational agents, and coding assistants and for creating synthetic data used to train future AI language models. Notably, that last use-case—allowing developers to use outputs from Llama models to improve other AI models—is now officially supported by Meta’s Llama 3.1 license for the first time.

Abusing the term “open source”

Llama 3.1 405B is an open-weights model, which means anyone can download the trained neural network files and run them or fine-tune them. That directly challenges a business model where companies like OpenAI keep the weights to themselves and instead monetize the model through subscription wrappers like ChatGPT or charge for access by the token through an API.

Fighting the “closed” AI model is a big deal to Mark Zuckerberg, who simultaneously released a 2,300-word manifesto today on why the company believes in open releases of AI models, titled, “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward.” More on the terminology in a minute. But briefly, he writes about the need for customizable AI models that offer user control and encourage better data security, higher cost-efficiency, and better future-proofing, as opposed to vendor-locked solutions.

All that sounds reasonable, but undermining your competitors using a model subsidized by a social media war chest is also an efficient way to play spoiler in a market where you might not always win with the most cutting-edge tech. That benefits Meta, Zuckerberg says, because he doesn’t want to get locked into a system where companies like his have to pay a toll to access AI capabilities, drawing comparisons to “taxes” Apple levies on developers through its App Store.

A screenshot of Mark Zuckerberg's essay, — Enlarge / A screenshot of Mark Zuckerberg’s essay, “Open Source AI Is the Path Forward,” published on July 23, 2024.

So, about that “open source” term. As we first wrote in an update to our Llama 2 launch article a year ago, “open source” has a very particular meaning that has traditionally been defined by the Open Source Initiative. The AI industry has not yet settled on terminology for AI model releases that ship either code or weights with restrictions (such as Llama 3.1) or that ship without providing training data. We’ve been calling these releases “open weights” instead.

Unfortunately for terminology sticklers, Zuckerberg has now baked the erroneous “open source” label into the title of his potentially historic aforementioned essay on open AI releases, so fighting for the correct term in AI may be a losing battle. Still, his usage annoys people like independent AI researcher Simon Willison, who likes Zuckerberg’s essay otherwise.

“I see Zuck’s prominent misuse of ‘open source’ as a small-scale act of cultural vandalism,” Willison told Ars Technica. “Open source should have an agreed meaning. Abusing the term weakens that meaning which makes the term less generally useful, because if someone says ‘it’s open source,’ that no longer tells me anything useful. I have to then dig in and figure out what they’re actually talking about.”

The Llama 3.1 models are available for download through Meta’s own website and on Hugging Face. They both require providing contact information and agreeing to a license and an acceptable use policy, which means that Meta can technically legally pull the rug out from under your use of Llama 3.1 or its outputs at any time.

The first GPT-4-class AI model anyone can download has arrived: Llama 405B Read More »

Meta risks sanctions over “sneaky” ad-free plans confusing users, EU says

consumer protection laws, Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, European Commission, European Union, facebook, General Data Protection Regulation, Instagram, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy / Ryan Harris / July 22, 2024

Under pressure —

Consumer laws may change Meta’s ad-free plans before EU’s digital crackdown does.

Ashley Belanger – Jul 22, 2024 7: 37 pm UTC

The European Commission (EC) has finally taken action to block Meta’s heavily criticized plan to charge a subscription fee to users who value privacy on its platforms.

Surprisingly, this step wasn’t taken under laws like the Digital Services Act (DSA), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Instead, the EC announced Monday that Meta risked sanctions under EU consumer laws if it could not resolve key concerns about Meta’s so-called “pay or consent” model.

Meta’s model is seemingly problematic, the commission said, because Meta “requested consumers overnight to either subscribe to use Facebook and Instagram against a fee or to consent to Meta’s use of their personal data to be shown personalized ads, allowing Meta to make revenue out of it.”

Because users were given such short notice, they may have been “exposed to undue pressure to choose rapidly between the two models, fearing that they would instantly lose access to their accounts and their network of contacts,” the EC said.

To protect consumers, the EC joined national consumer protection authorities, sending a letter to Meta requiring the tech giant to propose solutions to resolve the commission’s biggest concerns by September 1.

That Meta’s “pay or consent” model may be “misleading” is a top concern because it uses the term “free” for ad-based plans, even though Meta “can make revenue from using their personal data to show them personalized ads.” It seems that while Meta does not consider giving away personal information to be a cost to users, the EC’s commissioner for justice, Didier Reynders, apparently does.

“Consumers must not be lured into believing that they would either pay and not be shown any ads anymore, or receive a service for free, when, instead, they would agree that the company used their personal data to make revenue with ads,” Reynders said. “EU consumer protection law is clear in this respect. Traders must inform consumers upfront and in a fully transparent manner on how they use their personal data. This is a fundamental right that we will protect.”

Additionally, the EC is concerned that Meta users might be confused about how “to navigate through different screens in the Facebook/Instagram app or web-version and to click on hyperlinks directing them to different parts of the Terms of Service or Privacy Policy to find out how their preferences, personal data, and user-generated data will be used by Meta to show them personalized ads.” They may also find Meta’s “imprecise terms and language” confusing, such as Meta referring to “your info” instead of clearly referring to consumers’ “personal data.”

To resolve the EC’s concerns, Meta may have to give EU users more time to decide if they want to pay to subscribe or consent to personal data collection for targeted ads. Or Meta may have to take more drastic steps by altering language and screens used when securing consent to collect data or potentially even scrapping its “pay or consent” model entirely, as pressure in the EU mounts.

So far, Meta has defended its model against claims that it violates the DMA, the DSA, and the GDPR, and Meta’s spokesperson told Ars that Meta continues to defend the model while facing down the EC’s latest action.

“Subscriptions as an alternative to advertising are a well-established business model across many industries,” Meta’s spokesperson told Ars. “Subscription for no ads follows the direction of the highest court in Europe and we are confident it complies with European regulation.”

Meta’s model is “sneaky,” EC said

Since last year, the social media company has argued that its “subscription for no ads” model was “endorsed” by the highest court in Europe, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

However, privacy advocates have noted that this alleged endorsement came following a CJEU case under the GDPR and was only presented as a hypothetical, rather than a formal part of the ruling, as Meta seems to interpret.

What the CJEU said was that “users must be free to refuse individually”—”in the context of” signing up for services—”to give their consent to particular data processing operations not necessary” for Meta to provide such services “without being obliged to refrain entirely from using the service.” That “means that those users are to be offered, if necessary for an appropriate fee, an equivalent alternative not accompanied by such data processing operations,” the CJEU said.

The nuance here may matter when it comes to Meta’s proposed solutions even if the EC accepts the CJEU’s suggestion of an acceptable alternative as setting some sort of legal precedent. Because the consumer protection authorities raised the action due to Meta suddenly changing the consent model for existing users—not “in the context of” signing up for services—Meta may struggle to persuade the EC that existing users weren’t misled and pressured into paying for a subscription or consenting to ads, given how fast Meta’s policy shifted.

Meta risks sanctions if a compromise can’t be reached, the EC said. Under the EU’s Unfair Contract Terms Directive, for example, Meta could be fined up to 4 percent of its annual turnover if consumer protection authorities are unsatisfied with Meta’s proposed solutions.

The EC’s vice president for values and transparency, Věra Jourová, provided a statement in the press release, calling Meta’s abrupt introduction of the “pay or consent” model “sneaky.”

“We are proud of our strong consumer protection laws which empower Europeans to have the right to be accurately informed about changes such as the one proposed by Meta,” Jourová said. “In the EU, consumers are able to make truly informed choices and we now take action to safeguard this right.”

Meta risks sanctions over “sneaky” ad-free plans confusing users, EU says Read More »

Meta tells court it won’t sue over Facebook feed-killing tool—yet

data protection, facebook, First Amendment, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy, Section 230, unfollow everything, user privacy / Mike M. / July 17, 2024

This week, Meta asked a US district court in California to toss a lawsuit filed by a professor, Ethan Zuckerman, who fears that Meta will sue him if he releases a tool that would give Facebook users an automated way to easily remove all content from their feeds.

Zuckerman has alleged that the imminent threat of a lawsuit from Meta has prevented him from releasing Unfollow Everything 2.0, suggesting that a cease-and-desist letter sent to the creator of the original Unfollow Everything substantiates his fears.

He’s hoping the court will find that either releasing his tool would not breach Facebook’s terms of use—which prevent “accessing or collecting data from Facebook ‘using automated means'”—or that those terms conflict with public policy. Among laws that Facebook’s terms allegedly conflict with are the First Amendment, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), as well as California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) and state privacy laws.

But Meta claimed in its motion to dismiss that Zuckerman’s suit is too premature, mostly because the tool has not yet been built and Meta has not had a chance to review the “non-existent tool” to determine how Unfollow Everything 2.0 might impact its platform or its users.

“Besides bald assertions about how Plaintiff intends Unfollow Everything 2.0 to work and what he plans to do with it, there are no concrete facts that would enable this Court to adjudicate potential legal claims regarding this tool—which, at present, does not even operate in the real world,” Meta argued.

Meta wants all of Zuckerman’s claims to be dismissed, arguing that “adjudicating Plaintiff’s claims would require needless rulings on hypothetical applications of California law, would likely result in duplicative litigation, and would encourage forum shopping.”

At the heart of Meta’s defense is a claim that there’s no telling yet if Zuckerman will ever be able to release the tool, although Zuckerman said he was prepared to finish the build within six weeks of a court win. Last May, Zuckerman told Ars that because Facebook’s functionality could change while the lawsuit is settled, it’s better to wait to finish building the tool because Facebook’s design is always changing.

Meta claimed that Zuckerman can’t confirm if Unfollow Everything 2.0 would work as described in his suit precisely because his findings are based on Facebook’s current interface, and the “process for unfollowing has changed over time and will likely continue to change.”

Further, Meta argued that the original Unfollow Everything performed in a different way—by logging in on behalf of users and automatically unfollowing everything, rather than performing the automated unfollowing when the users themselves log in. Because of that, Meta argued that the new tool may not prompt the same response from Meta.

A senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute who helped draft Zuckerman’s complaint, Ramya Krishnan, told Ars that the two tools operate nearly identically, however.

“Professor Zuckerman’s tool and the original Unfollow Everything work in essentially the same way,” Krishnan told Ars. “They automatically unfollow all of a user’s friends, groups, and pages after the user installs the tool and logs in to Facebook using their web browser.”

Ultimately, Meta claimed that there’s no telling if Meta would even sue over the tool’s automated access to user data, dismissing Zuckerman’s fears as unsubstantiated.

Only when the tool is out in the wild and Facebook is able to determine “actual, concrete facts about how it works in practice” that “may prove problematic” will Meta know if a legal response is needed, Meta claimed. Without reviewing the technical specs, Meta argued, Meta has no way to assess the damages or know if it would sue over a breach of contract, as alleged, or perhaps over other claims not alleged, such as trademark infringement.

Meta tells court it won’t sue over Facebook feed-killing tool—yet Read More »

Apple Vision Pro, new cameras fail user-repairability analysis

Apple, cameras, Meta, new york, Policy, right to repair, Tech, US PIRG / Mike M. / July 4, 2024

Apple's Vision Pro scored 0 points in US PIRG's self-repairability analysis. — Enlarge / Apple’s Vision Pro scored 0 points in US PIRG’s self-repairability analysis.

Kyle Orland

In December, New York became the first state to enact a “Right to Repair” law for electronics. Since then, other states, including Oregon and Minnesota, have passed similar laws. However, a recent analysis of some recently released gadgets shows that self-repair still has a long way to go before it becomes ubiquitous.

On Monday, the US Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) released its Leaders and Laggards report that examined user repairability of 21 devices subject to New York’s electronics Right to Repair law. The nonprofit graded devices “based on the quality and accessibility of repair manuals, spare parts, and other critical repair materials.”

Nathan Proctor, one of the report’s authors and senior director for the Campaign for the Right to Repair for the US PIRG Education Fund, told Ars Technica via email that PIRG focused on new models since the law only applies to new products, adding that PIRG “tried to include a range of covered devices from well-known brands.”

While all four smartphones included on the list received an A-minus or A, many other types of devices got disappointing grades. The HP Spectre Fold foldable laptop, for example, received a D-minus due to low parts (2 out of 10) and manual (4 out of 10) scores.

The report examined four camera models—Canon’s EOS r100, Fujifilm’s GFX 100 ii, Nikon’s Zf, and Sony’s Alpha 6700—and all but one received an F. The outlier, the Sony camera, managed a D-plus.

Two VR headsets were also among the losers. US PIRG gave Apple’s Vision Pro and Meta’s Quest 3 an F.

You can see PIRG’s full score breakdown below:

Repair manuals are still hard to access

New York’s Digital Fair Repair Act requires consumer electronics brands to allow consumers access to the same diagnostic tools, parts, and repair manuals that its own repair technicians use. However, the PIRG organization struggled to access manuals for some recently released tech that’s subject to the law.

For example, Sony’s PlayStation 5 Slim received a 1/10 score. PIRG’s report includes an apparent screenshot of an online chat with Sony customer support, where a rep said that the company doesn’t have a copy of the console’s service manual available and that “if the unit needs repair, we recommend/refer customers to the service center.”

Apple’s Vision Pro, meanwhile, got a 0/10 manual score, while the Meta Quest 3 got a 1/10.

According to the report, “only 12 of 21 products provided replacement procedures, and 11 listed which tools are required to disassemble the product.”

The report suggests difficulties in easily accessing repair manuals, with the report’s authors stating that reaching out to customer service representatives “often” proved “unhelpful.” The group also pointed to a potential lack of communication between customer service reps and the company’s repairability efforts.

For example, Apple launched its Self Service Repair Store in April 2022. But PIRG’s report said:

… our interaction with their customer service team seemed to imply that there was no self-repair option for [Apple] phones. We were told by an Apple support representative that ‘only trained Apple Technician[s]’ would be able to replace our phone screen or battery, despite a full repair manual and robust parts selection available on the Apple website.

Apple didn’t immediately respond to Ars Technica’s request for comment.

Apple Vision Pro, new cameras fail user-repairability analysis Read More »

Anthropic introduces Claude 3.5 Sonnet, matching GPT-4o on benchmarks

AI, Anthropic, Biz & IT, Claude, Claude 3, Claude 3.5, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude Sonnet, Google Gemini, GPT-4, GPT-4o, large language models, LLMs, machine learning, Meta, Mistral, openai, text synthesis / Mike M. / June 21, 2024

Anthropic / Benj Edwards

On Thursday, Anthropic announced Claude 3.5 Sonnet, its latest AI language model and the first in a new series of “3.5” models that build upon Claude 3, launched in March. Claude 3.5 can compose text, analyze data, and write code. It features a 200,000 token context window and is available now on the Claude website and through an API. Anthropic also introduced Artifacts, a new feature in the Claude interface that shows related work documents in a dedicated window.

So far, people outside of Anthropic seem impressed. “This model is really, really good,” wrote independent AI researcher Simon Willison on X. “I think this is the new best overall model (and both faster and half the price of Opus, similar to the GPT-4 Turbo to GPT-4o jump).”

As we’ve written before, benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) are troublesome because they can be cherry-picked and often do not capture the feel and nuance of using a machine to generate outputs on almost any conceivable topic. But according to Anthropic, Claude 3.5 Sonnet matches or outperforms competitor models like GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro on certain benchmarks like MMLU (undergraduate level knowledge), GSM8K (grade school math), and HumanEval (coding).

Enlarge / Claude 3.5 Sonnet benchmarks provided by Anthropic.

If all that makes your eyes glaze over, that’s OK; it’s meaningful to researchers but mostly marketing to everyone else. A more useful performance metric comes from what we might call “vibemarks” (coined here first!) which are subjective, non-rigorous aggregate feelings measured by competitive usage on sites like LMSYS’s Chatbot Arena. The Claude 3.5 Sonnet model is currently under evaluation there, and it’s too soon to say how well it will fare.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet also outperforms Anthropic’s previous-best model (Claude 3 Opus) on benchmarks measuring “reasoning,” math skills, general knowledge, and coding abilities. For example, the model demonstrated strong performance in an internal coding evaluation, solving 64 percent of problems compared to 38 percent for Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also a multimodal AI model that accepts visual input in the form of images, and the new model is reportedly excellent at a battery of visual comprehension tests.

Roughly speaking, the visual benchmarks mean that 3.5 Sonnet is better at pulling information from images than previous models. For example, you can show it a picture of a rabbit wearing a football helmet, and the model knows it’s a rabbit wearing a football helmet and can talk about it. That’s fun for tech demos, but the tech is still not accurate enough for applications of the tech where reliability is mission critical.

Anthropic introduces Claude 3.5 Sonnet, matching GPT-4o on benchmarks Read More »

Lawsuit: Meta engineer told to resign after calling out sexist hiring practices

diversity, Meta, Policy, Retaliation, sexism / Ari B / June 19, 2024

“Driving women away” —

Meta managers are accused of retaliation and covering up mistreatment of women.

Ashley Belanger – Jun 18, 2024 9: 54 pm UTC

Meta got hit Tuesday with a lawsuit alleging that the company knowingly overlooks sexist treatment of female employees. That includes an apparent practice of hiring and promoting less qualified men to roles over more qualified female applicants.

The complaint was filed in a US district court in New York by Jeffrey Smith, an engineer who joined Meta in 2018. Smith alleged that Meta was on the brink of promoting him when suddenly his “upward trajectory stopped” after he started speaking up about allegedly misogynistic management practices at Meta.

Smith claimed that instead of a promotion, his Meta manager, Sacha Arnaud, suggested that he resign shortly after delivering Smith’s first-ever negative performance review, which reduced his bonus payout and impacted his company stock. Smith has alleged he suffered emotional distress and economic injury due to this alleged retaliation.

“Punished almost immediately”

The engineer—whose direct reports consider him to be “pro-active” and “the most thoughtful manager” ever, the complaint noted—started protesting Meta’s treatment of women in the summer of 2023.

For Smith, the tipping point toward advocating for women at Meta came when an “exceedingly capable female Meta employee” had her role downsized during a company reorganization. Some of her former responsibilities were allocated to two male employees, one of which Smith considered “a particularly poor fit,” because the male employee had significantly less experience than the female employee and no experience managing other managers.

After that, Smith learned about a Meta research scientist, Ran Rubin, who allegedly evaluated “a high-performing” female employee’s work “more critically than men’s work.”

Smith said that he repeatedly raised concerns about the perceived sexist management with Meta’s human resources and leadership, but nothing came of it.

Instead of prompting Meta to intervene, Smith was overwhelmed as more women came forward, revealing what he considered “a pattern of neglectful management” at Meta, routinely providing “overly critical feedback” and exhibiting “bias against the women.” Three women specifically complained about Rubin, who allegedly provided poor management and “advocated for white men to have supervision” over the women whose competence he “denigrated.”

“Rubin’s comments about each of these women was not based on any evidence, and all had significant experience and no complaints against them,” Smith’s complaint said.

As Smith tells it, he couldn’t help but speak up after noticing “a qualified female employee was inexplicably stripped of responsibilities, a male supervisor was hyper-critical of a female direct report, certain male managers exhibited bias towards women they oversaw and that Meta exhibited systematic preferential treatment towards men in promotions and ratings, while failing to provide career development support to women,” his complaint said.

Smith alleged that Meta “punished” him “almost immediately” after he spoke up for these women. Rather than incorporate employee feedback into his performance review, his manager took the “highly unusual” step of skipping a formal review and instead delivering an informal critical review.

Meta accused of “driving women away”

“Smith felt intimidated,” the complaint said, and he stopped reporting alleged mistreatment of women for a short period. But in October 2023, “Smith decided that he could not stay silent any longer,” resuming his criticism of Meta’s allegedly sexist male managers with gusto. Some women had left Meta over the alleged treatment, and once again, he felt he ought to be “voicing his concerns that the actions of Rubin and other managers were driving women away from Meta by treating them unequally.”

Weeks later, Smith received a negative annual performance review, but that didn’t stop him from raising a red flag when he learned that a manager intended to fill a research science manager role “with a junior white man.”

Smith told his manager that “the two most qualified people for the role” were “both women and were not being considered,” Smith’s complaint said. But allegedly, his manager “responded by lashing out” and “questioning whether Smith’s response was ‘productive.'” After that, another employee accused of acting “disrespectfully” toward women “yelled at and insulted Smith,” while everyday workplace activity like taking previously approved time off suddenly seemed to negatively impact his performance review.

Ultimately, “no action was ever taken regarding his complaints about Mr. Rubin or the culture at Meta,” Smith’s complaint said, but his manager suggested that he “search for a new job internally” before later “stating that Smith should consider resigning his role.”

Smith hopes a jury will agree that Meta violated anti-retaliation and anti-interference laws in New York. A victory could result in civil and punitive damages compensating Smith for harm to his “professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment.” It could also block Meta from any further mistreatment of women in the workplace, as alleged in the complaint.

An attorney for Smith, Valdi Licul, provided Ars with a statement, characterizing Smith’s case as “yet another example of how major corporations are failing to address sexist cultures and how they try to silence those who speak out against their practices. We look forward to holding Meta accountable and making it clear that sexism has no place in the workforce.”

Meta did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Lawsuit: Meta engineer told to resign after calling out sexist hiring practices Read More »

Runway’s latest AI video generator brings giant cotton candy monsters to life

AI, AI-generated video, Biz & IT, Deepfakes, filmmaking, films, Gen-2, Gen-3, Gen-3 Alpha, giant cotton-candy monster, Google, machine learning, Meta, openai, Runway, Sora, Special Effects, video synthesis / Ryan Harris / June 19, 2024

Enlarge / Screen capture of a Runway Gen-3 Alpha video generated with the prompt “A giant humanoid, made of fluffy blue cotton candy, stomping on the ground, and roaring to the sky, clear blue sky behind them.”

On Sunday, Runway announced a new AI video synthesis model called Gen-3 Alpha that’s still under development, but it appears to create video of similar quality to OpenAI’s Sora, which debuted earlier this year (and has also not yet been released). It can generate novel, high-definition video from text prompts that range from realistic humans to surrealistic monsters stomping the countryside.

Unlike Runway’s previous best model from June 2023, which could only create two-second-long clips, Gen-3 Alpha can reportedly create 10-second-long video segments of people, places, and things that have a consistency and coherency that easily surpasses Gen-2. If 10 seconds sounds short compared to Sora’s full minute of video, consider that the company is working with a shoestring budget of compute compared to more lavishly funded OpenAI—and actually has a history of shipping video generation capability to commercial users.

Gen-3 Alpha does not generate audio to accompany the video clips, and it’s highly likely that temporally coherent generations (those that keep a character consistent over time) are dependent on similar high-quality training material. But Runway’s improvement in visual fidelity over the past year is difficult to ignore.

AI video heats up

It’s been a busy couple of weeks for AI video synthesis in the AI research community, including the launch of the Chinese model Kling, created by Beijing-based Kuaishou Technology (sometimes called “Kwai”). Kling can generate two minutes of 1080p HD video at 30 frames per second with a level of detail and coherency that reportedly matches Sora.

Gen-3 Alpha prompt: “Subtle reflections of a woman on the window of a train moving at hyper-speed in a Japanese city.”

Not long after Kling debuted, people on social media began creating surreal AI videos using Luma AI’s Luma Dream Machine. These videos were novel and weird but generally lacked coherency; we tested out Dream Machine and were not impressed by anything we saw.

Meanwhile, one of the original text-to-video pioneers, New York City-based Runway—founded in 2018—recently found itself the butt of memes that showed its Gen-2 tech falling out of favor compared to newer video synthesis models. That may have spurred the announcement of Gen-3 Alpha.

Gen-3 Alpha prompt: “An astronaut running through an alley in Rio de Janeiro.”

Generating realistic humans has always been tricky for video synthesis models, so Runway specifically shows off Gen-3 Alpha’s ability to create what its developers call “expressive” human characters with a range of actions, gestures, and emotions. However, the company’s provided examples weren’t particularly expressive—mostly people just slowly staring and blinking—but they do look realistic.

Provided human examples include generated videos of a woman on a train, an astronaut running through a street, a man with his face lit by the glow of a TV set, a woman driving a car, and a woman running, among others.

Gen-3 Alpha prompt: “A close-up shot of a young woman driving a car, looking thoughtful, blurred green forest visible through the rainy car window.”

The generated demo videos also include more surreal video synthesis examples, including a giant creature walking in a rundown city, a man made of rocks walking in a forest, and the giant cotton candy monster seen below, which is probably the best video on the entire page.

Gen-3 Alpha prompt: “A giant humanoid, made of fluffy blue cotton candy, stomping on the ground, and roaring to the sky, clear blue sky behind them.”

Gen-3 will power various Runway AI editing tools (one of the company’s most notable claims to fame), including Multi Motion Brush, Advanced Camera Controls, and Director Mode. It can create videos from text or image prompts.

Runway says that Gen-3 Alpha is the first in a series of models trained on a new infrastructure designed for large-scale multimodal training, taking a step toward the development of what it calls “General World Models,” which are hypothetical AI systems that build internal representations of environments and use them to simulate future events within those environments.

Runway’s latest AI video generator brings giant cotton candy monsters to life Read More »

Surgeon general’s proposed social media warning label for kids could hurt kids

facebook, health, Mental Health, Meta, online child safety, Policy, social media platforms, us surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, youth mental health crisis / Blake Jones / June 17, 2024

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wants to put a warning label on social media platforms, alerting young users of potential mental health harms.

“It is time to require a surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms stating that social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents,” Murthy wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Monday.

Murthy argued that a warning label is urgently needed because the “mental health crisis among young people is an emergency,” and adolescents overusing social media can increase risks of anxiety and depression and negatively impact body image.

Spiking mental health issues for young people began long before the surgeon general declared a youth behavioral health crisis during the pandemic, an April report from a New York nonprofit called the United Health Fund found. Between 2010 and 2022, “adolescents ages 12–17 have experienced the highest year-over-year increase in having a major depressive episode,” the report said. By 2022, 6.7 million adolescents in the US were reporting “suffering from one or more behavioral health condition.”

However, mental health experts have maintained that the science is divided, showing that kids can also benefit from social media depending on how they use it. Murthy’s warning label seems to ignore that tension, prioritizing raising awareness of potential harms even though parents potentially restricting online access due to the proposed label could end up harming some kids. The label also would seemingly fail to acknowledge known risks to young adults, whose brains continue developing after the age of 18.

To create the proposed warning label, Murthy is seeking better data from social media companies that have not always been transparent about studying or publicizing alleged harms to kids on their platforms. Last year, a Meta whistleblower, Arturo Bejar, testified to a US Senate subcommittee that Meta overlooks obvious reforms and “continues to publicly misrepresent the level and frequency of harm that users, especially children, experience” on its platforms Facebook and Instagram.

According to Murthy, the US is past the point of accepting promises from social media companies to make their platforms safer. “We need proof,” Murthy wrote.

“Companies must be required to share all of their data on health effects with independent scientists and the public—currently they do not—and allow independent safety audits,” Murthy wrote, arguing that parents need “assurance that trusted experts have investigated and ensured that these platforms are safe for our kids.”

“A surgeon general’s warning label, which requires congressional action, would regularly remind parents and adolescents that social media has not been proved safe,” Murthy wrote.

Kids need safer platforms, not a warning label

Leaving parents to police kids’ use of platforms is unacceptable, Murthy said, because their efforts are “pitted against some of the best product engineers and most well-resourced companies in the world.”

That is nearly an impossible battle for parents, Murthy argued. If platforms are allowed to ignore harms to kids while pursuing financial gains by developing features that are laser-focused on maximizing young users’ online engagement, platforms will “likely” perpetuate the cycle of problematic use that Murthy described in his op-ed, the American Psychological Association (APA) warned this year.

Downplayed in Murthy’s op-ed, however, is the fact that social media use is not universally harmful to kids and can be beneficial to some, especially children in marginalized groups. Monitoring this tension remains a focal point of the APA’s most recent guidance, which noted that in April 2024 that “society continues to wrestle with ways to maximize the benefits of these platforms while protecting youth from the potential harms associated with them.”

“Psychological science continues to reveal benefits from social media use, as well as risks and opportunities that certain content, features, and functions present to young social media users,” APA reported.

According to the APA, platforms urgently need to enact responsible safety standards that diminish risks without restricting kids’ access to beneficial social media use.

“By early 2024, few meaningful changes to social media platforms had been enacted by industry, and no federal policies had been adopted,” the APA report said. “There remains a need for social media companies to make fundamental changes to their platforms.”

The APA has recommended a range of platform reforms, including limiting infinite scroll, imposing time limits on young users, reducing kids’ push notifications, and adding protections to shield kids from malicious actors.

Bejar agreed with the APA that platforms owe it to parents to make meaningful reforms. His ideal future would see platforms gathering more granular feedback from young users to expose harms and confront them faster. He provided senators with recommendations that platforms could use to “radically improve the experience of our children on social media” without “eliminating the joy and value they otherwise get from using such services” and without “significantly” affecting profits.

Bejar’s reforms included platforms providing young users with open-ended ways to report harassment, abuse, and harmful content that allow users to explain exactly why a contact or content was unwanted—rather than platforms limiting feedback to certain categories they want to track. This could help ensure that companies that strategically limit language in reporting categories don’t obscure the harms and also provide platforms with more information to improve services, Bejar suggested.

By improving feedback mechanisms, Bejar said, platforms could more easily adjust kids’ feeds to stop recommending unwanted content. The APA’s report agreed that this was an obvious area for platform improvement, finding that “the absence of clear and transparent processes for addressing reports of harmful content makes it harder for youth to feel protected or able to get help in the face of harmful content.”

Ultimately, the APA, Bejar, and Murthy all seem to agree that it is important to bring in outside experts to help platforms come up with better solutions, especially as technology advances. The APA warned that “AI-recommended content has the potential to be especially influential and hard to resist” for some of the youngest users online (ages 10–13).

Surgeon general’s proposed social media warning label for kids could hurt kids Read More »

Meta halts plans to train AI on Facebook, Instagram posts in EU

European Union, facebook, gdpr, General Data Protection Regulation, Instagram, Meta, noyb, Online Privacy, Policy / Blake Jones / June 14, 2024

Not so fast —

Meta was going to start training AI on Facebook and Instagram posts on June 26.

Ashley Belanger – Jun 14, 2024 6: 44 pm UTC

Meta has apparently paused plans to process mounds of user data to bring new AI experiences to Europe.

The decision comes after data regulators rebuffed the tech giant’s claims that it had “legitimate interests” in processing European Union- and European Economic Area (EEA)-based Facebook and Instagram users’ data—including personal posts and pictures—to train future AI tools.

There’s not much information available yet on Meta’s decision. But Meta’s EU regulator, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC), posted a statement confirming that Meta made the move after ongoing discussions with the DPC about compliance with the EU’s strict data privacy laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

“The DPC welcomes the decision by Meta to pause its plans to train its large language model using public content shared by adults on Facebook and Instagram across the EU/EEA,” the DPC said. “This decision followed intensive engagement between the DPC and Meta. The DPC, in co-operation with its fellow EU data protection authorities, will continue to engage with Meta on this issue.”

The European Center for Digital Rights, known as Noyb, had filed 11 complaints across the EU and intended to file more to stop Meta from moving forward with its AI plans. The DPC initially gave Meta AI the green light to proceed but has now made a U-turn, Noyb said.

Meta’s policy still requires update

In a blog, Meta had previously teased new AI features coming to the EU, including everything from customized stickers for chats and stories to Meta AI, a “virtual assistant you can access to answer questions, generate images, and more.” Meta had argued that training on EU users’ personal data was necessary so that AI services could reflect “the diverse cultures and languages of the European communities who will use them.”

Before the pause, the company had been hoping to rely “on the legal basis of ‘legitimate interests’” to process the data, because it’s needed “to improve AI at Meta.” But Noyb and EU data regulators had argued that Meta’s legal basis did not comply with the GDPR, with the Norwegian Data Protection Authority arguing that “the most natural thing would have been to ask the users for their consent before their posts and images are used in this way.”

Rather than ask for consent, however, Meta had given EU users until June 26 to opt out. Noyb had alleged that in going this route, Meta planned to use “dark patterns” to thwart AI opt-outs in the EU and collect as much data as possible to fuel undisclosed AI technologies. Noyb urgently argued that once users’ data is in the system, “users seem to have no option of ever having it removed.”

Noyb said that the “obvious explanation” for Meta seemingly halting its plans was pushback from EU officials, but the privacy advocacy group also warned EU users that Meta’s privacy policy has not yet been fully updated to reflect the pause.

“We welcome this development but will monitor this closely,” Max Schrems, Noyb chair, said in a statement provided to Ars. “So far there is no official change of the Meta privacy policy, which would make this commitment legally binding. The cases we filed are ongoing and will need a determination.”

Ars was not immediately able to reach Meta for comment.

Meta halts plans to train AI on Facebook, Instagram posts in EU Read More »