Currently reading the latest NSF/Amazon call (NSF 21-585) which goes out of its way to say interdisciplinary perspectives are crucial and that "this program supports the conduct of fundamental computer science research".
So, is interdisciplinary work on "AI" actually "fundamental computer science research"?
"The lead PI on each proposal must bring computer science expertise to the research. Computationally focused research efforts informed by socio-technical and social behavioral needs of the field are broadly encouraged." Was this thing written by a committee?
"proposers are encouraged to be ambitious in formulating their scientific explorations and to consider multiple contexts and to integrate disciplinary perspectives from the social, behavioral, and cognitive science (for ex) as needed and appropriate to the scope of the work."
If Amazon were really interested in improving the "trustworthiness of AI", I think they'd contribute a bunch of funding to initiatives that required that the PI *not* be in CS.
"Projects must clearly be driven by fairness considerations and show computational innovation." Like, maybe the solution doesn't actually lie in computational innovation?
"proposals should describe the challenges that drive fundamental computer science research, incorporating multiple disciplinary perspectives as needed and appropriate to the scope of the work."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This whole interview is so incredibly cringe! On top of completely evading the issue as @timnitGebru points out, the views of both employees and users painted here are frankly awful. 1/n
First, a "fun subject" -- really? Even if that was meant somewhat sarcastically, at *best* it belittles the real harm done to @timnitGebru , @mmitchell_ai (not to mention @RealAbril and other mistreated Google employees).
But then check out Raghavan's reply. What does "famously open culture where people can be expressive" have to do with this story? What were they fired for, if not for being "expressive"?
Wow this article covers a lot of ground! Seems like a good way for folks interested in "AI ethics" and what that means currently to get a quick overview.
"Ethics in AI is essentially questioning, constantly investigating, and never taking for granted the technologies that are being rapidly imposed upon human life.
That questioning is made all the more urgent because of scale."
Among other things I really appreciate how Timnit is unerasing the contribution of our retracted co-authors and how key their contributions & perspectives were to the Stochastic Parrots paper.
@timnitGebru And so much else: @timnitGebru is absolutely brilliant at drawing connections between the research milieu, research content, geopolitics and individual, situated lived experience.
@timnitGebru On interdisciplinarity and the hierarchy of knowledge:
“If you have all the money, you don’t have to listen to anybody” —@timnitgebru
On professional societies not giving academic awards to harassers, "problematic faves", or bigots, a thread: /1
Context: I was a grad student at Stanford (in linguistics) in the 1990s, but I was clueless about Ullman. I think I knew of his textbook, but didn't know whether he was still faculty, let alone where. /2
I hadn't heard about his racist web page until this week. /3