371–380 of 683 posts
While I will not dive into the extremes here, this is yet another battle in the fight over language, right? The most important point of criticism seems to be that the language models are "unethical", i.e., not subject to control by a particular political standard. Am I the only one that finds this line of argumentation highly troubling? The idea that once you do something with language there should be someone proacti…
This doesn't strike me as anything that needs to be buried. The energy argument is tenuous and at this point models use relatively little compute power. The language bias is a better tack but I don't think this is earth shattering to anyone. Most of the internet is from Western sources and some fraction of that is racist/prejudiced. I think this is obvious to anyone who has ever used the internet.
It sounds like it should be buried because it's clickbait headline generating fluff that only would get attention because of where the authors come from. And I say that after reading a summary that sounds like the authors had a positive opinion of the paper. Google (probably) wanted to bury it because many of those clickbait headlines would have been negative to google.
(Also, what were they thinking would happen when they originally hired AI ethics researchers, then? Nobody made them do that.)
Anyone else see the narrative on Twitter to be so much different than Reddit and hacker news? On reddit and hacker news I have never seen any unconditional support for Timmit. Even amongst those anti Google and broadly in support of her, there's no whole agreement with all of what Timmit says; the assertion of her story, the reasons why and the conclusions. that a. She was fired b. That she was fired because of sexis…
I heard buying Twitter bots is cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about her toxic behavior? Do you dispute that?
Toxic is an inflammatory and unnecessary word to use when no-one is privy to the actual facts.
I did not read the paper (just like most people here), but by the title — “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” — it does not look like the CO2 emissions thing is the main topic of this research. BTW, "Stochastic Parrots" is a very descriptive name for the problem > Moreover, because the training datasets are so large, it’s hard to audit them to check for these embedded biases. “A me…
Gebru is the type of person who defines "bias" as anything that isn't sufficiently positive towards people who look like herself, not the usual definition of a deviation from reality as exists. Having encountered AI "fairness" and "bias" papers (words quoted because the words aren't used with their dictionary definitions), it's not even clear to me they should count as research at all, let alone be worth reading. They take as the starting premise that anything a model learns about the world that is politically incorrect is a bug, and go downhill from there.
Ok, so basically she is a bullshit social engineer, masquerading as an 'AI ethics researcher' "Gebru’s draft paper points out that the sheer resources required to build and sustain such large AI models means they tend to benefit wealthy organizations, while climate change hits marginalized communities hardest. “It is past time for researchers to prioritize energy efficiency and cost to reduce negative environmental i…
This is an shameful comment to read on this matter regarding a real, well-known, and serious researcher. It’s the worst kind of tech-bro middlebrow dismissal that makes no interesting comment on the content in question beyond some ill-informed shallow analysis, and assumes that years of making half-baked shitty web-apps have somehow gifted you insight into AI ethics that’s enough to decide what research is “real” and…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She was the technical co-lead of Google's Ethical AI team, publishing papers like this was exactly what she was hired to do. Here's Google's Principles for Artificial Intelligence https://ai.google/principles/ From the second paragraph of item 6: "We will work with a range of stakeholders to promote thoughtful leadership in this area, drawing on scientifically rigorous and multidisciplinary approaches. And we will re…
If a megafarm hires you to write papers for the Ethical Milk Production team, any modicum of social awareness will tell you that they don’t actually want you to write a paper about the ethics of animal products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is utter nonsense. If you looked outside her twitter feed and at evidence, its clear she was fired because she was toxic. Her threat to leave was her own fault which allows google to move forward. Look at her interactions with respected people like lecun. She has issues with disagreeing with people. She may be qualified, she can have opinions, you can also be the best engineer. If you are an asshole when it come…
It is not clear at all. Nobody at Google has said that she was fired for being toxic. That’s your inference.
That is the language used when firing someone for their behavior.