"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 impact and inequitable access to resources,” they write."
-- Has she calculated the opposite alternatives? What were the costs of the previous models? How about the alternative of not-having ai-backed search at all. Would worse results be actually worse energy wise? If you are not including the substitues/alternative costs it is just sloppy research, or just done purposely on bad faith.
"One is that shifts in language play an important role in social change; the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, for example, have tried to establish a new anti-sexist and anti-racist vocabulary. An AI model trained on vast swaths of the internet won’t be attuned to the nuances of this vocabulary and won’t produce or interpret language in line with these new cultural norms."
-- Ok, basically she is pissed as AI is picking normal language, that people use, and not using the vocabulary that is in vogue on certain political circles. Basically censure, and forced speech.
Why does google even bother at this point? It seems that certain circles just don't want to have positive constructive way, but it is becoming: "my way, or you are X", with "X" being whatever prerogative they will through at you.
I think social engineering b.s. should be kept as far away as possible from science. This is turning true ai research into a masquerade to push certain political agendas.