REVIEW 5 cited by
The De-democratization of AI: Deep Learning and the Compute Divide in Artificial Intelligence Research
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Increasingly, modern Artificial Intelligence (AI) research has become more computationally intensive. However, a growing concern is that due to unequal access to computing power, only certain firms and elite universities have advantages in modern AI research. Using a novel dataset of 171394 papers from 57 prestigious computer science conferences, we document that firms, in particular, large technology firms and elite universities have increased participation in major AI conferences since deep learning's unanticipated rise in 2012. The effect is concentrated among elite universities, which are ranked 1-50 in the QS World University Rankings. Further, we find two strategies through which firms increased their presence in AI research: first, they have increased firm-only publications; and second, firms are collaborating primarily with elite universities. Consequently, this increased presence of firms and elite universities in AI research has crowded out mid-tier (QS ranked 201-300) and lower-tier (QS ranked 301-500) universities. To provide causal evidence that deep learning's unanticipated rise resulted in this divergence, we leverage the generalized synthetic control method, a data-driven counterfactual estimator. Using machine learning based text analysis methods, we provide additional evidence that the divergence between these two groups - large firms and non-elite universities - is driven by access to computing power or compute, which we term as the "compute divide". This compute divide between large firms and non-elite universities increases concerns around bias and fairness within AI technology, and presents an obstacle towards "democratizing" AI. These results suggest that a lack of access to specialized equipment such as compute can de-democratize knowledge production.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Translate With Care: Addressing Gender Bias, Neutrality, and Reasoning in Large Language Model Translations
A new genderless-to-English benchmark shows that fine-tuning mBART-50 on carefully curated examples cuts gender stereotyping and pronoun-reasoning errors, beating larger proprietary systems on that benchmark.
-
How Hyper-Datafication Impacts the Sustainability Costs in Frontier AI
Hyper-datafication in frontier AI increases resource consumption and redistributes environmental burdens, labor risks, and representational harms toward the Global South, data workers, and under-represented cultures, ...
-
Towards Industrial Convergence : Understanding the evolution of scientific norms and practices in the field of AI
Mixed academic-industrial teams in AI adopt industrial-like practices and achieve higher visibility in both papers and code, while purely academic and industrial teams remain distinct.
-
What Makes Local Updates Effective: The Role of Data Heterogeneity and Smoothness
Under bounded second-order heterogeneity, local updates are shown to achieve faster convergence than mini-batch SGD in several convex and non-convex regimes, with matching lower bounds.
-
Irresponsible AI: big tech's influence on AI research and associated impacts
A review/position paper arguing that big tech's outsized influence on AI research channels the field toward scaling and general-purpose systems, producing environmental and social harms that technical fixes alone cann...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.