4 ms·
I'm saying that saying her paper was "light in technical substance" when we haven't read it is problematic. Any article such as this is going to be light on te
by lsiebert 6y ago
I'm saying that saying her paper was "light in technical substance" when we haven't read it is problematic. Any article such as this is going to be light on technical substance in comparison to the paper itself.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoThe article states her paper focused on the dangers of large language models: “Environmental and financial costs,” “Massive data, inscrutable models,” and “Research opportunity costs.” The dangers of large language models is an interesting topic but it’s not AI research and it doesn’t advance the state of the art of AI. When it comes to technical substance in the field of AI, her paper is indeed lacking in that unless the article completely failed to mention something that would directly qualify as original AI research.
- pseudalopex 6y agoHer job was AI ethics.
- CyberRabbi 6y agoThat is a good point. It says her field is “AI ethics,” not “AI.” So I have to admit that her paper was in her field. I also have to say that “AI” is a vastly different area of study than “ethics.” Very strange that Google has these organized in the same hierarchy.