![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/63\/2023\/04\/DM-AI-Update-e1681141844877.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
#HelloWorld. Regulatory hearings and debates were less prominent these past two weeks, so in this issue we turn to a potpourri of private AI industry developments. The Authors Guild releases new model contract clauses limiting generative AI uses; big tech companies provide AI customers with a series of promises and tips, at varying levels of abstraction; and the Section 230 safe harbor is ready for its spotlight. Plus, ChatGPT is no barrel of laughs\u2014actually, same barrel, same laughs. Let\u2019s stay smart together.<\/em> (Subscribe to the mailing list<\/a> to receive future issues.)<\/em><\/p>\n The Authors Guild adds new model clauses.<\/strong> Back in March, the Authors Guild recommended that authors insert a new model clause<\/a> in their contracts with publishers prohibiting use of the authors\u2019 work for \u201ctraining artificial intelligence to generate text.\u201d Platforms and publishers have increasingly seen this language pop up in their negotiations with authors. Now the Authors Guild is at it again. On June 1, the organization announced four new model clauses<\/a> that would require an author to disclose that a manuscript includes AI-generated text; place limits (to be specified in negotiation) on the amount of synthetic text that an author\u2019s manuscript can include; prohibit publishers from using AI narrators for audio books, absent the author\u2019s consent; and proscribe publishers from employing AI to generate translations, book covers, or interior art, again absent consent.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Tech companies try to assure.<\/strong> AI model developers and deployers are attempting to assuage prospective customers that the generative AI tools they\u2019re offering will not present substantial business risk. Currently, OpenAI\u2019s main business model is to encourage third-party app developers to build software on top of its models, like GPT, using the models as a back-end engine. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Business Insider <\/em>recently reported<\/a> that CEO Sam Altman has been meeting with developers privately to tell them OpenAI won\u2019t launch competitive apps of its own, aside from the already-everywhere ChatGPT.<\/p>\n At the same time, OpenAI released a set of \u201csafety best practices<\/a>\u201d for developers looking to integrate with OpenAI models. The tips are worth skimming to understand the myriad limitations still present in models like GPT\u2014they\u2019re not plug-and-play. The guidelines include suggestions to always keep a \u201chuman in the loop\u201d to review model output; to aggressively test the model through \u201cred team\u201d attacks before deploying; and, in operation, to input into the model multiple examples of \u201chigh quality\u201d output at the time of the generation request so as to \u201chelp constrain the topic and tone of output text.\u201d<\/p>\n Adobe, for its part, has been vocally marketing its own AI image generator, Firefly, touting that it was trained only on public domain, licensed, or Adobe-owned images, thereby mitigating the risk that Firefly will produce copyright-infringing output. To make that point more emphatically, Adobe is now promising, according to Fast Company<\/em> magazine<\/a>, to indemnify Firefly users against any third-party copyright infringement claims\u2014offer good for enterprise <\/em>customers only, however.<\/p>\n Not to be outdone, Microsoft on June 8 announced on its blog<\/a> \u201cthree AI Customer Commitments to assist our customers on their responsible AI journey.\u201d Intriguing but not yet well-defined is its second commitment, the creation of an \u201cAI Assurance Program\u201d to help customers confirm that the Microsoft AI applications they deploy in-house \u201cmeet the legal and regulatory requirements for responsible AI.\u201d The blog post suggests one main component of this second commitment will have Microsoft engage in public policy advocacy for appropriately scoped AI regulations.<\/p>\n Section 230 enters the picture.<\/strong> In broad strokes, Section 230<\/a> of the Communications Decency Act protects online platforms from being held liable in litigation for \u201cinformation provided by another\u201d\u2014user-generated comments, reviews, and uploaded videos are quintessential examples. One issue increasingly debated is whether this Section 230 safe harbor should extend to generative AI<\/a> tools. The answer is complex and implicates the specific architecture of the AI service at issue. Our bet: an app-level service that merely passes through to the end user synthetic content created by a third-party\u2019s LLM back-end is more likely to succeed in invoking the safe harbor, at least as currently written.<\/p>\n And now we have our first test case! On June 5, a radio host sued OpenAI<\/a> in a Georgia state court for defamation, alleging that ChatGPT falsely stated to a reporter that the host had embezzled from a nonprofit. We\u2019re eager to see whether OpenAI in its response (not yet filed) invokes Section 230 or whether it concedes that the safe harbor does not apply to its own conduct in running its generative AI models, as CEO Sam Altman implied in his Senate testimony last month<\/a>.<\/p>\n On the lighter side.<\/strong> Is ChatGPT funny? Like a clown? Does it amuse you? In a preprint paper<\/a> released on June 7, two German researchers suggested that the AI tool as comedian would soon wear out its welcome: Over 90% of 1,008 jokes the testers generated were the same <\/em>25 jokes (mostly dad ones). This perhaps raises a deep sociological question about the extent to which widespread use of LLMs might translate into growing homogeneity of culture, but let\u2019s table that debate in favor of a query about tomatoes, number two on the researchers\u2019 joke list: Why did the tomato turn red? Because it saw the salad dressing.<\/p>\n What should <\/em>we be following? <\/strong>Have suggestions for legal topics to cover in future editions? Please send them to AI-Update@duanemorris.com<\/a>. We\u2019d love to hear from you and continue the conversation.<\/p>\n Editor-in-Chief<\/em><\/strong>: <\/strong>Alex Goranin<\/a><\/p>\n Deputy Editors<\/em><\/strong>:<\/strong> Matt Mousley<\/a> and Tyler Marandola<\/a><\/p>\n Subscribe to the mailing list<\/em><\/a> to receive future issues.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" #HelloWorld. Regulatory hearings and debates were less prominent these past two weeks, so in this issue we turn to a potpourri of private AI industry developments. The Authors Guild releases new model contract clauses limiting generative AI uses; big tech companies provide AI customers with a series of promises and tips, at varying levels of … <\/p>\n Continue reading “The AI Update | June 14, 2023”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[21,15,14,20,19,16,22,28,13,17],"ppma_author":[5],"class_list":["post-117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-ai-regulation","tag-alex-goranin","tag-chatgpt","tag-government","tag-intellectual-property-litigation","tag-matt-mousley","tag-omegaverse","tag-section-230","tag-theaiupdate","tag-tylermarandola"],"authors":[{"term_id":5,"user_id":6,"is_guest":0,"slug":"duanemorris3","display_name":"Duane Morris","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/63\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"1","last_name":"Davies","first_name":"Thomas","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com","description":"Visit the Duane Morris website.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}