MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399268625 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54827-7_16

Copyright-Related Risks in the Creation and Use of ML/AI Systems

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399268625 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel M. Germán

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLaw, AI, and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersOffice fédéral de l'armement armasuisse
KeywordsBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The potential impact of LLMs on cybersecurity is moderated not only by their adoption, applications, technical capabilities, and safety technology supporting them, but also by the legal framework surrounding their usage. As countries around the world realize the profound impact ML and AI have on their society and economy, they need to ensure that the development and deployment of ML/AI solutions are aligned with the foundational principles of those countries. This chapter attempts to identify recent developments in the legal framework surrounding LLMs that will most likely impact their development and become suitable levers for ensuring their safety and guarding against their malicious usage, focusing on the EU and North America.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207