4 ms·

> hostile towards Gebru Her paper aren't really high quality. Her carbon footprint calculations had all of Google's compute running from jet fuel. [0] In her

> hostile towards Gebru Her paper aren't really high quality. Her carbon footprint calculations had all of Google's compute running from jet fuel. [0] In her "Gender Shades" paper she completely ignored the existence of the Asian race. That's a pretty big limitation for a paper named in such general terms. In another place she labels Asians as "white adjacent". She can't argue about technical subjects (here's an example [1]) because she isn't technical. [0] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a... [1] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter-amid-acrimonious-exchanges-on-ai-bias/ https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter...

mempko 3y ago
The actual paper [0] that Gebru wrote referenced Strubell's climate impact paper [1]. None of them make the assumption that google compute runs from jet fuel. They compare training the models to flying, driving, etc. In the "Gender Shades" paper [2] as you call it, she doesn't use race but dermatologist approved Fitzpatrick Skin Type in their analysis as a proxy which of course covers all people including Asians. The kind of bullshit (a technical term) response you gave is common among reactionaries who don't read, and can't do science. [0] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02243.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02243.pdf [2] http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a...
- 908B64B197 3y ago
  > she doesn't use race but dermatologist approved Fitzpatrick Skin Type in their analysis as a proxy which of course covers all people including Asians. Erasing Asians from stats when convenient has been a staple of the CRT movement for quite some times (when, for example, their existence break down stats "proving" racism against non-whites). The term "white-adjacent" has become one of the dog whistles of the movement.
  - mempko 3y ago
    But that's not what the paper does. Asians have many skin colors from light to very dark (compare China, Korea, and Japan to Thailand, Vietnam, and India). I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I don't see how it erases Asians since Asians are a very diverse group of people in appearance. In regards to CRT, CRT has always included Asians, for example, studying the Chinese Exclusion Act in the US. Many people who criticize CRT (mostly on the right) have no idea what it is. It seems to me that the anti-CRT crowd (mostly right-wing reactionaries) are making shit up to bring down this kind of important research in AI down.
    - 908B64B197 3y ago
      > In regards to CRT, CRT has always included Asians Quite the opposite. https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-students/ https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-student...
      - mempko 3y ago
        That article was about an expensive magnet school where by definition, the kids are privileged. Tuition is $30k per year, or with room/board $50k. https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/500658/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/500658/thomas-jef... The demographics of the school are indeed mostly Asian, and 97% of the pupils pay full tuition. Which means you have to be really well off to afford it. https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO::P0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0 https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO::P0... Is this article really about merit? or is it actually about wealth?
SilverBirch 3y ago
I don't know if you just... hope people don't read your citations. But as far as I could see from your citations you're not making sensible claims. The first citation the article talks about her citing someone else's work about carbon footprint. So firstly, they're not her calculations - the paper is by Strubell[1]. Secondly, the paper absolutely does not assume the compute is running from jet fuel! It calculates the total energy to train a model and then uses US EPA data to show how much CO2 that would be in practice and then compares that to how much CO2 emissions a flight puts out. Honestly, I don't know where on earth you got this rubbish about running Google compute on jet fuel. Secondly, you claim she isn't technical, she has a Masters in Electrical Engineering, a PhD in Computer Vision, and has had a fantastic career. Again in the actual link that you cite she is described as "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team". I just don't know what you think you're doing citing things that directly contradict your claims. If you think that Gebru is terrible, I would thoroughly recommend you talk about her less, because your attacks on her are so poor it lends her credibility. I'm fairly undecided on her - I literally don't know enough to judge, but your arguments are very poor. [1]:https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243
- revelio 3y ago
  Google datacenters are run off green power, so it's deceptive to compare energy costs there to jet fuel. It implies that the carbon impact is the same, which isn't true, because not all energy is the same. As for being technical or not, well, none of her work seems particularly interested in technology. It's all grievance studies stuff. Having academic credentials counts for nothing because universities are so obsessed with race ideology they'd happily award black females computing-related qualifications on the back of nothing. It supplies no credibility.
  - SilverBirch 3y ago
    I don't really see the point of getting deep into this, the logic is very clear in the peer reviewed paper. The energy consumption to train new models is marginal extra electricity consumption and so they've cited the EPA's numbers for CO2 emissions per Watt-hour of electricity. It's a perfectly fair comparison. Yes, you can caveat all sorts of "But we could do this with green energy" but that's not what the paper was about. >none of her work seems particularly interested in technology. Honestly! Her PhD in computer vision seems pretty technological to me. Fine, if the position you want to have is all universities are race ideology centres great, again, it reflects more on you than on anyone else.

mempko 3y ago

The actual paper [0] that Gebru wrote referenced Strubell's climate impact paper [1]. None of them make the assumption that google compute runs from jet fuel. They compare training the models to flying, driving, etc. In the "Gender Shades" paper [2] as you call it, she doesn't use race but dermatologist approved Fitzpatrick Skin Type in their analysis as a proxy which of course covers all people including Asians. The kind of bullshit (a technical term) response you gave is common among reactionaries who don't read, and can't do science. [0] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02243.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.02243.pdf [2] http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a.pdf http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a/buolamwini18a...

908B64B197 3y ago
> she doesn't use race but dermatologist approved Fitzpatrick Skin Type in their analysis as a proxy which of course covers all people including Asians. Erasing Asians from stats when convenient has been a staple of the CRT movement for quite some times (when, for example, their existence break down stats "proving" racism against non-whites). The term "white-adjacent" has become one of the dog whistles of the movement.
- mempko 3y ago
  But that's not what the paper does. Asians have many skin colors from light to very dark (compare China, Korea, and Japan to Thailand, Vietnam, and India). I'm not sure what you are talking about here. I don't see how it erases Asians since Asians are a very diverse group of people in appearance. In regards to CRT, CRT has always included Asians, for example, studying the Chinese Exclusion Act in the US. Many people who criticize CRT (mostly on the right) have no idea what it is. It seems to me that the anti-CRT crowd (mostly right-wing reactionaries) are making shit up to bring down this kind of important research in AI down.
  - 908B64B197 3y ago
    > In regards to CRT, CRT has always included Asians Quite the opposite. https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-students/ https://unherd.com/2022/02/anti-racism-betrays-asian-student...
    - mempko 3y ago
      That article was about an expensive magnet school where by definition, the kids are privileged. Tuition is $30k per year, or with room/board $50k. https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/500658/thomas-jefferson-high-school-for-science-and-technology https://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/schools/500658/thomas-jef... The demographics of the school are indeed mostly Asian, and 97% of the pupils pay full tuition. Which means you have to be really well off to afford it. https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO::P0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:300,0 https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO::P0... Is this article really about merit? or is it actually about wealth?

SilverBirch 3y ago

I don't know if you just... hope people don't read your citations. But as far as I could see from your citations you're not making sensible claims. The first citation the article talks about her citing someone else's work about carbon footprint. So firstly, they're not her calculations - the paper is by Strubell[1]. Secondly, the paper absolutely does not assume the compute is running from jet fuel! It calculates the total energy to train a model and then uses US EPA data to show how much CO2 that would be in practice and then compares that to how much CO2 emissions a flight puts out. Honestly, I don't know where on earth you got this rubbish about running Google compute on jet fuel. Secondly, you claim she isn't technical, she has a Masters in Electrical Engineering, a PhD in Computer Vision, and has had a fantastic career. Again in the actual link that you cite she is described as "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team". I just don't know what you think you're doing citing things that directly contradict your claims. If you think that Gebru is terrible, I would thoroughly recommend you talk about her less, because your attacks on her are so poor it lends her credibility. I'm fairly undecided on her - I literally don't know enough to judge, but your arguments are very poor. [1]:https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243 https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02243

revelio 3y ago
Google datacenters are run off green power, so it's deceptive to compare energy costs there to jet fuel. It implies that the carbon impact is the same, which isn't true, because not all energy is the same. As for being technical or not, well, none of her work seems particularly interested in technology. It's all grievance studies stuff. Having academic credentials counts for nothing because universities are so obsessed with race ideology they'd happily award black females computing-related qualifications on the back of nothing. It supplies no credibility.
- SilverBirch 3y ago
  I don't really see the point of getting deep into this, the logic is very clear in the peer reviewed paper. The energy consumption to train new models is marginal extra electricity consumption and so they've cited the EPA's numbers for CO2 emissions per Watt-hour of electricity. It's a perfectly fair comparison. Yes, you can caveat all sorts of "But we could do this with green energy" but that's not what the paper was about. >none of her work seems particularly interested in technology. Honestly! Her PhD in computer vision seems pretty technological to me. Fine, if the position you want to have is all universities are race ideology centres great, again, it reflects more on you than on anyone else.