3 ms·

I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act l

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. The other major problematic section is on energy use and unqualified comparison of units of large model training with carbon emissions of other activities (with no attempt to account for societal value of ML model research or training, nor economies of scale as training technology democratizes it and makes it cheaper). It is similar to the incredibly specious diatribes from Stephen Diehl lately balking at the raw energy numbers of Bitcoin mining, as if those numbers mean anything or relate to any conclusions on their own. I wrote up a lot more of my thoughts on Gebru’s bad article when it was first leaked. Here’s that comment: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25314824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25314824 I also feel you are very commonly involved in lengthy downvote / flagging threads with disingenuous takes on others’ comments and deliberate unwillingness to apply charitable takes or avoid taking things out of context. I am sure from your POV you don’t feel that way and I’m not asking anyone to agree with my assessment; I have zero goal of citing things to back it up. I am just going to preemptively drop off from replying to you any further.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. I think this is a completely fair summary of the paper. But you described the paper as suggesting that people are "required to agree with or accept woke vocabulary" or previously your criticism was "Nobody is required to accept “wokeness” vocabulary". I don't see how you can justify those criticisms from the paper. They aren't there. There isn't a place where they paper says that anyone needs to use or agree with a particular kind of vocabulary. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the claims you're making about what the paper says just aren't in the actual document. Hence my question: where are you getting that criticism from? Where does the paper suggest that people need to agree with woke vocabulary? I think it's uncharitable for you to criticize the paper based on a mischaracterization, and so I think it's completely reasonable for me to clarify by what reasoning you came to make that criticism. Because again, despite trying I can't find an interpretation of the paper where your criticism makes sense. I'd implore anyone else reading to look at sections 4.1 and 4.2 as well. They just simply don't say this.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  I’ll just add that I agree - I also implore readers to read sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the link because it explicitly and unequivocally backs up and confirms what I said about the “woke vocab” critique. I hope people will read it, because a direct reading of it does support my position and does not support your position.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. I think this is a completely fair summary of the paper. But you described the paper as suggesting that people are "required to agree with or accept woke vocabulary" or previously your criticism was "Nobody is required to accept “wokeness” vocabulary". I don't see how you can justify those criticisms from the paper. They aren't there. There isn't a place where they paper says that anyone needs to use or agree with a particular kind of vocabulary. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but the claims you're making about what the paper says just aren't in the actual document. Hence my question: where are you getting that criticism from? Where does the paper suggest that people need to agree with woke vocabulary? I think it's uncharitable for you to criticize the paper based on a mischaracterization, and so I think it's completely reasonable for me to clarify by what reasoning you came to make that criticism. Because again, despite trying I can't find an interpretation of the paper where your criticism makes sense. I'd implore anyone else reading to look at sections 4.1 and 4.2 as well. They just simply don't say this.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
I’ll just add that I agree - I also implore readers to read sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the link because it explicitly and unequivocally backs up and confirms what I said about the “woke vocab” critique. I hope people will read it, because a direct reading of it does support my position and does not support your position.