Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Initial policy considerations for generative artificial intelligence

·2023·OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers
DOI 10.1787/fae2d1e6-en
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1787/fae2d1e6-en

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Abdelnabi, S. and M. Fritz (2021), Adversarial Watermarking Transformer: Towards Tracing Text Provenance with Data Hiding, https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03015. · arXiv
  2. Abid, A., M. Farooqi and J. Zou (2021), "Persistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Models", http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.05783. · arXiv
  3. Boháček, M. and H. Farid (2022), "Protecting President Zelenskyy against Deep Fakes", http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12043. · arXiv
  4. Bommarito, M. and D. Katz. (2022), "GPT Takes the Bar Exam", Cornell University, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.14402. · arXiv
  5. Borgeaud, S. et al. (2021), "Improving Language Models by Retrieving from Trillions of Tokens", http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04426. · arXiv
  6. Bubeck, S. et al. (2023), "Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early Experiments with GPT- 4", http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712. · arXiv
  7. Chawla, S. et al. (2023), Ten Years after ImageNet: A 360° Perspective on Artificial Intelligence, Royal Society Open Science 10 (3), https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01797. · arXiv
  8. Craig, C. (2021), "The AI-Copyright Challenge: Tech-Neutrality, Authorship, and the Public Interest", https://ssrn.com/abstract=4014811.
  9. Deltorn, J. and A. Macrez (2018), "Authorship in the Age of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3261329.
  10. Demner-Fushman, D., Y. Mrabet and A. Abacha (2020), "Consumer Health Information and Question Answering: Helping Consumers Find Answers to Their Health-Related Information Needs", Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 27 (2): 194-201, https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz152. · DOI
  11. Denton, E. et al. (2020), "Bringing the People Back In: Contesting Benchmark Machine Learning Datasets", http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07399. · arXiv
  12. Felten, E., M. Raj and R. Seamans (2023), "How Will Language Modelers like ChatGPT Affect Occupations and Industries?", http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01157. · arXiv
  13. Fraser, K., S. Kiritchenko and I. Nejadgholi (2023), "A Friendly Face: Do Text-to-Image Systems Rely on Stereotypes When the Input Is Under-Specified?", http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07159. · arXiv
  14. Ganguli, D. et al. (2022), "Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviours, and Lessons Learned", http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07858. · arXiv
  15. Goldstein, J. et al. (2023), "Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigations", http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04246. · arXiv
  16. Gómez, E. et al. (2018), Deep Learning for Singing Processing: Achievements, Challenges and Impact on Singers and Listeners, https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03046. · arXiv
  17. Goodfellow, I., Y. Bengio and A. Courville (2016), Deep Learning, MIT Press, https://www.deeplearningbook.org.
  18. Goodfellow, I. et al. (2014), "Generative Adversarial Nets", Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 27 (NIPS 2014), https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2014/file/5ca3e9b122f61f8f06494c97b1afccf3- Paper.pdf.
  19. Henderson, P. et al. (2023), Foundation Models and Fair Use, https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15715. · arXiv
  20. Kreps, S., R. Mccain and M. Brundage. (2022), "All the News That's Fit to Fabricate: AI- Generated Text as a Tool of Media Misinformation", Journal of Experimental Political Science 9 (1), pp. 104-17, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1XVYU3. · DOI
  21. Le, B. et al. (2023), "Why Do Deepfake Detectors Fail?", http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13156. · arXiv
  22. LeCun, Y. (2022), "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence", https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf.
  23. Longoni, C. et al. (2022), "News from Generative Artificial Intelligence Is Believed Less", In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 97-106, Vol. Association for Computing Machinery, https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3531146.3533077. · DOI
  24. Luccioni, A. et al. (2023), "Stable Bias: Analyzing Societal Representations in Diffusion Models", http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11408. · arXiv
  25. Maerten, A. and A. Soydaner (2023), "From Paintbrush to Pixel: A Review of Deep Neural Networks in AI-Generated Art", http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.10913. · arXiv
  26. Marcus, G. (2020), "he Next Decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligence", http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177. · arXiv
  27. Markov, T. et al. (2022), "A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real World", http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03274. · arXiv
  28. Martínez, G. et al. (2023), "Combining Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet: Heading towards Evolution or Degradation?", http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01255. · arXiv
  29. Murray, M. (2023), "Generative and AI Authored Artworks and Copyright Law", Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, Vol. 45, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4152484.
  30. OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en. · DOI · Paper page
  31. OECD (2022), Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/76972a4a-en. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Passi, S. and M. Vorvoreanu (2022), "Overreliance on AI: Literature Review", https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2022/06/Aether-Overreliance-on-AI- Review-Final-6.21.22.pdf.
  33. Pettinato Oltz, T. (2023), "ChatGPT, Professor of Law", https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4347630.
  34. Sadasivan, V. et al. (2023), "Can AI-Generated Text Be Reliably Detected?", http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156. · arXiv
  35. Skalse, J., N. Howe and D. Krueger (2022), "Defining and Characterizing Reward Hacking", https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.13085. · arXiv
  36. Sofer, C. et al. (2015), "What Is Typical Is Good: The Influence of Face Typicality on Perceived Trustworthiness", Psychological Science 26 (1): 39-47, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614554955. · DOI
  37. Turner, A. et al. (2019), "Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Power", http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.01683. · arXiv
  38. Weidinger, L. et al. (2022), "Taxonomy of Risks Posed by Language Models", In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 214-29, https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Yang, L., S. Chou and Y. Yang (2017), "MidiNet: A Convolutional Generative Adversarial Network for Symbolic-Domain Music Generation", http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10847. · arXiv
  40. Zarifhonarvar, A. (2023), "Economics of ChatGPT: A Labour Market View on the Occupational Impact of Artificial Intelligence", https://ssrn.com/abstract=4350925.
  41. Zellers, R. et al. (2019), "Defending Against Neural Fake News", http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12616. · arXiv
  42. Overreliance is defined as "users accepting incorrect AI recommendations"", as discussed in "Overreliance on AI: Literature review". Passi and Vorvoreanu 2022. https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/uploads/prod/2022/06/Aether-Overreliance-on-AI-Review-Final-6.21.22.pdf. 14 These biases may be rooted in the training data (problematic relationships between captions and images), model design (aesthetic bias towards youth and femininity found in models steered towards producing AI artwork), or the proactive vs. hands-off vs. design choices of the AI engineers, which either try to actively reduce biases or shift responsibility for appropriate use to the user. (Fraser, Kiritchenko and Nejadgholi, 2023[).
  43. With models such as for example Chinchilla (DeepMind) Hoffmann et al. 2022. "Training Compute- Optimal Large Language Models". https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.15556.pdf.; LLaMa (Meta), Touvron et al. 2023. "LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models". https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.13971.pdf.; and Alpaca (Stanford University), Taori et al. 2023. "Alpaca: A Strong, Replicable Instruction-Following Model". https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html. · arXiv

Cited by

See all 36

Metadata

Venue
OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers
Publisher
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)
Published
2023-09-18
ISSN
3005-348X
DOI
10.1787/fae2d1e6-en
Cited by
36
References
39

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.