This is a great summary by @SashaMTL of the environmental and human costs of so-called "AI" technology.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/generative-ai-is-cool-but-lets-not-forget-its-human-and-environmental-costs/

>>

The mounting human and environmental costs of generative AI

Op-ed: Planetary impacts, escalating financial costs, and labor exploitation all factor.

Ars Technica

@SashaMTL

"For instance, with ChatGPT, which was queried by tens of millions of users at its peak a month ago, thousands of copies of the model are running in parallel, responding to user queries in real time, all while using megawatt hours of electricity and generating metric tons of carbon emissions. It’s hard to estimate the exact quantity of emissions this results in, given the secrecy and lack of transparency around these big LLMs."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/generative-ai-is-cool-but-lets-not-forget-its-human-and-environmental-costs/

>>

The mounting human and environmental costs of generative AI

Op-ed: Planetary impacts, escalating financial costs, and labor exploitation all factor.

Ars Technica

@SashaMTL

"it’s difficult to carry out external evaluations and audits of these models since you can’t even be sure that the underlying model is the same every time you query it. It also means that you can’t do scientific research on them, given that studies must be reproducible."

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/04/generative-ai-is-cool-but-lets-not-forget-its-human-and-environmental-costs/

>>

The mounting human and environmental costs of generative AI

Op-ed: Planetary impacts, escalating financial costs, and labor exploitation all factor.

Ars Technica

@SashaMTL

Unknown environmental costs, non-reproducible science, data theft, and exploitative labor practices. And for what? A shiny toy to play with for the masses + the ability to claim "AGI" (while blocking scrutiny of the claim) for OpenAI and other #TESCREAL adherents.

>>

@SashaMTL Is the horse out of the barn? Do we just have to stand by and watch this go down?

Indeed not. We've collectively handled other sources of pollution (e.g. lead in gasoline, CFCs harming the ozone layer) before and we can do it again.

Let's heed @SashaMTL 's call to get engaged with the regulatory process!

@SashaMTL

p.s. re "the horse is out of the barn". That metaphor is used to express helplessness, a "there's-nothing-we-can-do-now" attitude. But do people with escaped horses really say "Oh well, was nice knowing ya horsey"?

I'd guess probably not.

@emilymbender @SashaMTL

Naw, my grandpa would sic all the kids on the horse and hilarity would ensue.

Because he knew the horse would always return on its own at dinner time.

@emilymbender @SashaMTL Probably not. Once a cat’s out of a bag, on the other hand, who can really be bothered?

@emilymbender @SashaMTL It's like boiling frogs, except actual frogs jump out of water as it's heated.

Or the definition of insanity, which has nothing to do with repeating an action with the expectation of a different result, since most insane people don't do that, and also since some actions have different results when repeated.

@emilymbender @SashaMTL

All it means is "stop wasting time discussing the barn door latch and go get the damn horse"

@video_manager @emilymbender @SashaMTL

I love this meaning to the phrase. This is the best. Someone put this on a billboard.

@emilymbender @SashaMTL
I have a similar issue with the pendulum metaphor for social dynamics—whenever someone says that the pendulum has swung too far in some direction, they are basically saying that their preferred social arrangement is the natural, stable equilibrium, and that any attempt to change that is futile
@emilymbender @SashaMTL Few things in the social are truly reproducible (i.e., stochastic processes). Just because version controlled software, known parameters and deterministic behaviour regarding start conditions *can* provide mechanistic reproducibility this is by no means a precondition for scientific research. In the negative "evidence is evidence" (i.e., credible evidence of one occurrence can falsify a theory).
@tg9541 @SashaMTL That's a strange defense of OpenAI et al's extremely closed practices.
@emilymbender @SashaMTL It hasn't been my intention to defend OpenAI. My statement was about a simple observation regarding scientific research and reproducibility. On the contrary, scientists should always try to falsify what's claimed to be true, and they should lay bare any claim that's not falsifiable. Unfortunately 500 chars text is quite limiting 🙂