Cage-based Texture Transfer with Geometric Filtering

Real-time texture transfer expands the creative horizon for interactive applications, enabling seamless detail projection in scenarios that range from digital character cosmetics to procedural automotive texturing. Yet, its practical application is governed by inherent trade-offs between processing speed and suppression of artifacts. Low-latency transfer methods frequently fail to suppress artifacts, and robust alternatives rely on large-scale models that are costly in training and memory. Our proposed method bridges the gap between efficiency and robustness by using a cage-based geometric filtering method to identify Non-Cosmetic Zones (NCZs) for artifact suppression. While other models are resource-intensive and require multiple days of training on manually annotated datasets, we are able to successfully suppress artifacts and achieve immediate deployment on consumer-grade hardware. Our framework achieved highly efficient runtimes of ~70ms on mobile devices for a ~4.8k triangle mesh.

Reverse Projection: Real-Time Local Space Texture Mapping

We present Reverse Projection, a novel projective texture mapping technique for painting a decal directly to the texture of a 3D object. Designed to be used in games, this technique works in real-time. By using projection techniques that are computed in local space textures and outward-looking, users using low-end android devices to high-end gaming desktops are able to enjoy the personalization of their assets. We believe our proposed pipeline is a step in improving the speed and versatility of model painting.

Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems

Generative AI systems produce a range of risks. To ensure the safety of generative AI systems, these risks must be evaluated. In this paper, we make two main contributions toward establishing such evaluations. First, we propose a three-layered framework that takes a structured, sociotechnical approach to evaluating these risks. This framework encompasses capability evaluations, which are the main current approach to safety evaluation. It then reaches further by building on system safety principles, particularly the insight that context determines whether a given capability may cause harm. To account for relevant context, our framework adds human interaction and systemic impacts as additional layers of evaluation. Second, we survey the current state of safety evaluation of generative AI systems and create a repository of existing evaluations. Three salient evaluation gaps emerge from this analysis. We propose ways forward to closing these gaps, outlining practical steps as well as roles and responsibilities for different actors. Sociotechnical safety evaluation is a tractable approach to the robust and comprehensive safety evaluation of generative AI systems.

Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models

This paper aims to help structure the risk landscape associated with large-scale Language Models (LMs). In order to foster advances in responsible innovation, an in-depth understanding of the potential risks posed by these models is needed. A wide range of established and anticipated risks are analysed in detail, drawing on multidisciplinary expertise and literature from computer science, linguistics, and social sciences. We outline six specific risk areas: I. Discrimination, Exclusion and Toxicity, II. Information Hazards, III. Misinformation Harms, V. Malicious Uses, V. Human-Computer Interaction Harms, VI. Automation, Access, and Environmental Harms. The first area concerns the perpetuation of stereotypes, unfair discrimination, exclusionary norms, toxic language, and lower performance by social group for LMs. The second focuses on risks from private data leaks or LMs correctly inferring sensitive information. The third addresses risks arising from poor, false or misleading information including in sensitive domains, and knock-on risks such as the erosion of trust in shared information. The fourth considers risks from actors who try to use LMs to cause harm. The fifth focuses on risks specific to LLMs used to underpin conversational agents that interact with human users, including unsafe use, manipulation or deception. The sixth discusses the risk of environmental harm, job automation, and other challenges that may have a disparate effect on different social groups or communities. In total, we review 21 risks in-depth. We discuss the points of origin of different risks and point to potential mitigation approaches. Lastly, we discuss organisational responsibilities in implementing mitigations, and the role of collaboration and participation. We highlight directions for further research, particularly on expanding the toolkit for assessing and evaluating the outlined risks in LMs.