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。