当前位置: X-MOL 学术arXiv.cs.GL › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
The Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science) of Stochastic Parrots -- A Plea for Science to NOT take the Route Advocated by Gebru and Bender
arXiv - CS - General Literature Pub Date : 2021-01-11 , DOI: arxiv-2101.10098
Michael Lissack

This article is a position paper written in reaction to the now-infamous paper titled "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" by Timnit Gebru, Emily Bender, and others who were, as of the date of this writing, still unnamed. I find the ethics of the Parrot Paper lacking, and in that lack, I worry about the direction in which computer science, machine learning, and artificial intelligence are heading. At best, I would describe the argumentation and evidentiary practices embodied in the Parrot Paper as Slodderwetenschap (Dutch for Sloppy Science) -- a word which the academic world last widely used in conjunction with the Diederik Stapel affair in psychology [2]. What is missing in the Parrot Paper are three critical elements: 1) acknowledgment that it is a position paper/advocacy piece rather than research, 2) explicit articulation of the critical presuppositions, and 3) explicit consideration of cost/benefit trade-offs rather than a mere recitation of potential "harms" as if benefits did not matter. To leave out these three elements is not good practice for either science or research.

中文翻译:

随机鹦鹉的Slodderwetenschap(草率的科学)-对科学不采取Gebru和Bender倡导的路线的请求

这篇文章是对现在臭名昭著的文章“关于随机鹦鹉的危险:语言模型会变得太大吗?”的回应而发表的立场文件。Timnit Gebru,Emily Bender和其他人(截至撰写本文时)仍未命名。我发现鹦鹉纸缺乏道德规范,并且在这种不足中,我担心计算机科学,机器学习和人工智能的发展方向。充其量,我将鹦鹉论文中体现的论点和证据实践称为Slodderwetenschap(草率科学的荷兰语),这个词是学术界最后一次与Diederik Stapel事件在心理学中一起广泛使用的词[2]。鹦鹉论文中缺少三个关键要素:1)承认它是立场书/倡导性文章,而不是研究报告,2)明确阐述关键前提,以及3)明确考虑成本/收益的取舍,而不是仅仅简单地列举潜在的“危害”,就好像收益无关紧要。忽略这三个要素对于科学或研究都不是好习惯。
更新日期:2021-01-26
down
wechat
bug