![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/artificialintelligence\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/63\/2023\/04\/DM-AI-Update-e1681141844877.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
#HelloWorld. The days are now shorter, but this issue is longer. President Biden\u2019s October 30th<\/sup> Executive Order deserves no less. Plus, the UK AI Safety Summit warrants a drop-by, and three copyright and right-to-publicity theories come under a judicial microscope. Read on to catch up. Let\u2019s stay smart together. (<\/em>Subscribe to the mailing list<\/em><\/a> to receive future issues.)<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mission: Executive Order. <\/strong>The White House grabbed most of the AI headlines over the last two weeks after President Biden on October 30 signed his \u201cExecutive Order<\/a> on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.\u201d (If staff reports are to be believed, the villainous \u201cEntity\u201d AI in Mission: Impossible \u2013 Dead Reckoning, Part One<\/em> had something<\/a> to do with it).<\/p>\n The order itself is a sprawling, dense document, with applicability across various economic sectors from energy to healthcare to finance. Here\u2019s the gist:<\/p>\n The UK Safety Summit.<\/strong> President Biden\u2019s Executive Order scooped the recent UK AI Safety Summit<\/a>\u2014billed as \u201cthe first global AI Safety Summit\u201d\u2014by two days. The meeting, held November 1-2, produced the Bletchley Declaration on AI Safety<\/a>, which includes the UK, US, China, Japan, India, and EU constituents among its 28 signatories. The declaration is similar in purpose and theme to the voluntary commitment<\/a> 7 leading AI developers signed onto earlier this year in the US, covered in a prior issue<\/a> of The AI Update.\u00a0We remain hopeful that these voluntary initial undertakings are a road to somewhere more specific. Time will tell. South Korea and France are scheduled to host the next two summits, in 2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some legal guidance in AI litigation.<\/strong> Back in the US, the federal case<\/a> brought by a group of artists against Stability AI, the maker of the popular text-to-image Stable Diffusion model, provided some interesting insights. The Northern District of California judge overseeing the lawsuit issued his opinion<\/a> dismissing most of the claims for now, but giving the artists an opportunity to try again. Here are three core takeaways:<\/p>\n What we\u2019re reading: <\/strong>A start-up named Vectara recently published a \u201cHallucination Leaderboard<\/a>,\u201d attempting to evaluate how often the leading large language models hallucinate under simulated conditions. Vectara prompted each LLM to summarize 1,000 short news documents and counted how made-up facts were included. The winner? GPT-4, with a hallucination rate of 3%. The worst performer? Google\u2019s Palm-Chat, with a 27% rate. But that was an outlier: Most of the models tested had rates in the mid-to-high single digits. Still, in the knowledge business, even a single-digit percentage of factual inaccuracy may not be good enough.<\/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\n
\n
\n
\n