*sigh* once again relegated to the critics' box. The framing in this piece leans so hard into the victims (no one believed us) persevering (we showed 'em!) narrative of the deep learning folks. #AIhype ahead:

"Success draws critics", uh nope. I'm not in this conversation because of whatever success deep learning has had. I'm in it because of the unfounded #AIhype and the harms being carried out in the name of so-called "AI".

>> Screencap from article link...
"huge progress ... in some key applications like computer vision and language" --- uh "language" isn't an application, TYVM.

And I am not trying to "take away" any actual progress (e.g. improved ASR, MT). I'm only taking issue with overclaims.

>> Screencap, same article: &q...
There are five people quoted in the article. But there are three photos: Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, and Fei-fei Li. It's a hagiography of them. Gary Marcus and I are in there as "critics" to be "dismissed".

>> Screencap, same article rea...
I'm glad at least some of the points I was making about societal implications made it in (though I never said "gone too far", that suggests there's some coherent path here).

>> Screencap: "Issues of ...Screencap: "In additio...
But then she gives LeCun the space to do this rebuttal (though it is not at all clear that he was shown my words; these quotes could have been in response to generic questions about "AI ethicists"):

>> Screencap: "However, L...
This makes it sound like he thinks I'm simplifying something, if his words really are in response to mine. But even if not: scholars like Noble, Benjamin, Broussard, Raji, Gebru, Birhane, Marshall are the ones diving in and exploring the complexities!

>> Same screencap as prev twee...
And, frankly, the implication that only the people who build these things are qualified to comment on their societal implications/#AIethics shows just how naïve and *un*qualified LeCun is in this area.

Note: I'm assuming naïveté and not ill-intent. Generously.

>> Same screencap as previous ...
When the leaders of the field are unable to listen to and learn from the amazing Black women scholars doing this work, is it any surprise that DEI efforts are failing?

>> New screencap, same article...Screencap: "While it h...
It's not enough to recruit people from marginalized & otherwise underrepresented groups into the field. Without co-ownership of the relevant spaces, it won't be feasible for them to stay.

Google pushed out Dr. @timnitGebru and Dr. @mmitchell_ai rather than let them lead towards a more diverse work environment.

So, lesson learned. Just because a reporter seems (with their initial query) to be interested in writing a piece that doesn't succumb to the AI hype doesn't mean they have actually extricated themselves.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with @emilymbender@dair-community.social on Mastodon

@emilymbender@dair-community.social on Mastodon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @emilymbender

Jan 9
In the context of the Koko/GPT-3 trainwreck I'm reminded of @mathbabedotorg 's book _The Shame Machine_ penguinrandomhouse.com/books/606203/t…

@mathbabedotorg I do think there's a positive role for shame in this case --- shame here is reinforcing community values against "experimenting" with vulnerable populations without doing due diligence re research ethics.

It seems that part of the #BigData #mathymath #ML paradigm is that people feel entitled to run experiments involving human subjects who haven't had relevant training in research ethics—y'know computer scientists bumbling around thinking they have the solutions to everything. >>
Read 5 tweets
Dec 27, 2022
There's a certain kind of techbro who thinks it's a knock-down argument to say "Well, you haven't built anything". As if the only people whose expertise counts are those close to the machine. I'm reminded (again) of @timnitGebru 's wise comments on "the hierarchy of knowledge".>>
I've been pondering some recently about where that hierarchy comes from. It's surely reinforced by the way that $$ (both commercial and, sadly, federal research funds) tends to flow --- and people mistaking VCs, for example, as wise decision makers.

But I also think that some of it has roots in the way different subjects are taught. Math & CS are both (frequently) taught in very gate-keepy ways (think weeder classes) and also students are evaluated with very cut & dried exams.

Read 20 tweets
Dec 24, 2022
Trying out You.com because people are excited about their chat bot. First observation: Their disclaimer. Here's this thing we're putting up for everyone to use while also knowing (and saying) that it actually doesn't work. Screencap from You.com. Under the box that says "Ask me
Second observation: The footnotes, allegedly giving the source of the information provided in chatbot style, are difficult to interpret. How much of that paragraph is actually sourced from the relevant page? Where does the other "info" come from? Screencap of YouChat's response to "how do I avoid gett
A few of the queries I tried returned paragraphs with no footnotes at all.

Read 5 tweets
Dec 24, 2022
Chatbots are not a good replacement for search engines

Chatbots are not a good UI design for information access needs

Chatbots-as-search is an idea based on optimizing for convenience. But convenience is often at odds with what we need to be doing as we access and assess in formation.

Read 6 tweets
Dec 14, 2022
We're seeing multiple folks in #NLProc who *should know better* bragging about using #ChatGPT to help them write papers. So, I guess we need a thread of why this a bad idea:

1- The writing is part of the doing of science. Yes, even the related work section. I tell my students: Your job there is show how your work is building on what has gone before. This requires understanding what has gone before and reasoning about the difference.

The result is a short summary for others to read that you the author vouch for as accurate. In general, the practice of writing these sections in #NLProc (and I'm guessing CS generally) is pretty terrible. But off-loading this to text synthesizers is to make it worse.

Read 9 tweets
Dec 7, 2022
I appreciated the chance to have my say in this article by @willknight but I need to push back on a couple of things:



#ChatGPT #LLM #MathyMath
@willknight The 1st is somewhat subtle. Saying this ability has been "unlocked" paints a picture where there is a pathway to some "AI" and what technologists are doing is figuring out how to follow that path (with LMs, no less!). SciFi movies are not in fact documentaries from the future. >> Screenshot from linked arti...
@willknight Far more problematic is the closing quote, wherein Knight returns to the interviewee he opened with (CEO of a coding tools company) and platforms her opinions about "AI" therapists.

>> Screencap: Reddy, CEO of Ab...Screencap: Reddy, the AI st...
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!