5 ms·

I have read the paper. There were several things wrong with it. The most glaring example was comparing the power consumption of training a machine learning NLP

I have read the paper. There were several things wrong with it. The most glaring example was comparing the power consumption of training a machine learning NLP model with a gas guzzling jet. Not once in the paper does she mention that Google has been carbon neutral since 2008, because that would trash half her paper. The paper seemed of desperation to make non existent arguments.

ant6n 5y ago
You mean Google bought pieces of paper and pretends that they represent removing co2 from the atmosphere, when in reality they don't. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s...
- random314 5y ago
  You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. The point is that electricity can have a green source, liquid carbon fuel can't. You absolutely cannot compare the two. FWIW, Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy.
  - ant6n 5y ago
    > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral (which they originally accomplished with certificates). Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. > You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. It's not the same argument. But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral.
    - random314 5y ago
      > Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. I am going to have to ask for a citation for this. They claim to be carbon neutral, not that they don't use any resources at all. >> > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. > But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral Nobody has made this claim > Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Which is true. > But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral. That is obvious
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fulafel 5y ago
"Carbon neutral" via buying offsets and renewables made electricity is better than nothing but also a half truth. Their energy demand is displacing other consumers of that electricity, and for example, who will then consume eg fossil made electricity instead.
- random314 5y ago
  That's not how economics of scale work. This is zero sum thinking. Google buying green electricity makes green electricity cheaper, not more expensive. More producers are incentivized to produce green electricity as Google's demand increases continuously. Other companies like Microsoft and Facebook go green as well, and the economies of scale kick in. Prices start collapsing. This is actually happening right now. If I go solar today with my home, it is not a negative action that displaces someone else. It actually expands the solar industry and enables cheaper solar in the future. Without early customers, green energy would never have taken off.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    The fact that there is a learning effect doesn't mean it's good to consume more electricity. If you want to argue positive sum, you would need to show a the consumed green electricity displaces more than the equivalent amount of fossil electricity plus co2 fp of measures used to handle variability of renewables vs nearly flat demand from data centers. Which seems hard.
    - random314 5y ago
      I mean we might as well shut down electricity to all of our homes if we want to make this argument. And we could argue with each other over snail mail. But I suspect that will actually be worse from CO2 emissions perspective.
      - fulafel 5y ago
        That's strawman, some electricity use is needed because we depend on it for survival and the rest is various levels of nice to have. But its use has environmental costs and we are in big trouble with climate change. As long as there is fossil made electricity flowing in the grid, marginal changes in demand can be viewed as contributing to its production, because electricity is fungible (modulo transmission considerations).
Rebelgecko 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the people who worked on BERT generated more CO2 commuting to work than they did training the model. It seems like a drop in the bucket.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Could you explain in detail why the power consumption calculations were mistaken? It sounds like you're saying that the calculations weren't mistaken, but that she didn't mention the carbon neutral status of Google as a whole.
- random314 5y ago
  Yes, I never said that the power consumption calculations were wrong. The paper wasn't about power consumption, but CO2 emissions leading to global warming. She compared the power consumption of model training to jet fuel exhaust and used jet fuel exhaust to tie the power consumption to CO2 emissions. Of course, she didn't mention that Google is carbon neutral and its data centers are primarily powered by green energy. I have not seen a more dishonest paper in CS. Electricity from the grid can come from green sources, and in the particular case if Google, it actually does. Comparing electricity consumption for a one time training with jet fuel usage is absurd. Moreover, the paper doesn't mention any possible benefit of building such nlp models. Increased accessibility of web content across languages and for disabled people. Google, simply through its search, maps and navigation saves a lot of wasted carbon. Complaining about the power consumption of ML models is absolutely ridiculous. Her paper reeked of desperation to find something, anything within the AI space that could be posted as an ethical dilemma. Reading that paper convinced me that Timnit could bring absolutely no value to AI as a field, in terms of ethics or otherwise.
- random314 5y ago
  Consider this paragraph "We first consider environmental risks. Echoing a line of recent work outlining the environmental and financial costs of deep learn- ing systems [129], we encourage the research community to priori- tize these impacts. One way this can be done is by reporting costs and evaluating works based on the amount of resources they con- sume [57]. As we outline in §3, increasing the environmental and financial costs of these models doubly punishes marginalized com- munities that are least likely to benefit from the progress achieved by large LMs and most likely to be harmed by negative environ- mental consequences of its resource consumption. At the scale we are discussing (outlined in §2), the first consideration should be the environmental cost." This whole paragraph is such a reach, and so absurd that it seems like a parody. Are we supposed to believe that marginalized communities are being harmed by Google training NLP models using green energy? Or will they benefit from better translation from English language content into marginalized languages? Timnit has zero interest in what actually benefits marginalized communities. She uses them as a prop to build a career in high paying AI field where, apparently, the sub field of ai fairness has a low bar for publication.

ant6n 5y ago

You mean Google bought pieces of paper and pretends that they represent removing co2 from the atmosphere, when in reality they don't. https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-sustainability-lead-robin-bass/ https://www.dezeen.com/2021/07/30/carbon-neutrality-google-s...

random314 5y ago
You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. The point is that electricity can have a green source, liquid carbon fuel can't. You absolutely cannot compare the two. FWIW, Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy.
- ant6n 5y ago
  > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral (which they originally accomplished with certificates). Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. > You can use the same argument to argue that EVs are a scam, because some electricity is generated by coal. It's not the same argument. But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral.
  - random314 5y ago
    > Google also uses a large amount of resources besides electrical energy, so claiming to be neutral is a scam unless they actually sequester co2 permanently. I am going to have to ask for a citation for this. They claim to be carbon neutral, not that they don't use any resources at all. >> > Google's data centers are primarily powered by green energy. > But not since they declared themselves carbon neutral Nobody has made this claim > Note the original claim was 'carbon neutral since 2008'. Which is true. > But I do argue that EVs are not carbon neutral. That is obvious

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fulafel 5y ago

"Carbon neutral" via buying offsets and renewables made electricity is better than nothing but also a half truth. Their energy demand is displacing other consumers of that electricity, and for example, who will then consume eg fossil made electricity instead.

random314 5y ago
That's not how economics of scale work. This is zero sum thinking. Google buying green electricity makes green electricity cheaper, not more expensive. More producers are incentivized to produce green electricity as Google's demand increases continuously. Other companies like Microsoft and Facebook go green as well, and the economies of scale kick in. Prices start collapsing. This is actually happening right now. If I go solar today with my home, it is not a negative action that displaces someone else. It actually expands the solar industry and enables cheaper solar in the future. Without early customers, green energy would never have taken off.
- fulafel 5y ago
  The fact that there is a learning effect doesn't mean it's good to consume more electricity. If you want to argue positive sum, you would need to show a the consumed green electricity displaces more than the equivalent amount of fossil electricity plus co2 fp of measures used to handle variability of renewables vs nearly flat demand from data centers. Which seems hard.
  - random314 5y ago
    I mean we might as well shut down electricity to all of our homes if we want to make this argument. And we could argue with each other over snail mail. But I suspect that will actually be worse from CO2 emissions perspective.
    - fulafel 5y ago
      That's strawman, some electricity use is needed because we depend on it for survival and the rest is various levels of nice to have. But its use has environmental costs and we are in big trouble with climate change. As long as there is fossil made electricity flowing in the grid, marginal changes in demand can be viewed as contributing to its production, because electricity is fungible (modulo transmission considerations).

Rebelgecko 5y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who worked on BERT generated more CO2 commuting to work than they did training the model. It seems like a drop in the bucket.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

Could you explain in detail why the power consumption calculations were mistaken? It sounds like you're saying that the calculations weren't mistaken, but that she didn't mention the carbon neutral status of Google as a whole.

random314 5y ago
Yes, I never said that the power consumption calculations were wrong. The paper wasn't about power consumption, but CO2 emissions leading to global warming. She compared the power consumption of model training to jet fuel exhaust and used jet fuel exhaust to tie the power consumption to CO2 emissions. Of course, she didn't mention that Google is carbon neutral and its data centers are primarily powered by green energy. I have not seen a more dishonest paper in CS. Electricity from the grid can come from green sources, and in the particular case if Google, it actually does. Comparing electricity consumption for a one time training with jet fuel usage is absurd. Moreover, the paper doesn't mention any possible benefit of building such nlp models. Increased accessibility of web content across languages and for disabled people. Google, simply through its search, maps and navigation saves a lot of wasted carbon. Complaining about the power consumption of ML models is absolutely ridiculous. Her paper reeked of desperation to find something, anything within the AI space that could be posted as an ethical dilemma. Reading that paper convinced me that Timnit could bring absolutely no value to AI as a field, in terms of ethics or otherwise.
random314 5y ago
Consider this paragraph "We first consider environmental risks. Echoing a line of recent work outlining the environmental and financial costs of deep learn- ing systems [129], we encourage the research community to priori- tize these impacts. One way this can be done is by reporting costs and evaluating works based on the amount of resources they con- sume [57]. As we outline in §3, increasing the environmental and financial costs of these models doubly punishes marginalized com- munities that are least likely to benefit from the progress achieved by large LMs and most likely to be harmed by negative environ- mental consequences of its resource consumption. At the scale we are discussing (outlined in §2), the first consideration should be the environmental cost." This whole paragraph is such a reach, and so absurd that it seems like a parody. Are we supposed to believe that marginalized communities are being harmed by Google training NLP models using green energy? Or will they benefit from better translation from English language content into marginalized languages? Timnit has zero interest in what actually benefits marginalized communities. She uses them as a prop to build a career in high paying AI field where, apparently, the sub field of ai fairness has a low bar for publication.