REVIEW 5 cited by
LLeMpower: Understanding Disparities in the Control and Access of Large Language Models
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
LLeMpower: Understanding Disparities in the Control and Access of Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are a powerful technology that augment human skill to create new opportunities, akin to the development of steam engines and the internet. However, LLMs come with a high cost. They require significant computing resources and energy to train and serve. Inequity in their control and access has led to concentration of ownership and power to a small collection of corporations. In our study, we collect training and inference requirements for various LLMs. We then analyze the economic strengths of nations and organizations in the context of developing and serving these models. Additionally, we also look at whether individuals around the world can access and use this emerging technology. We compare and contrast these groups to show that these technologies are monopolized by a surprisingly few entities. We conclude with a qualitative study on the ethical implications of our findings and discuss future directions towards equity in LLM access.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
On the Effectiveness of Fact Checking Information from Politically Congruent and Incongruent Large Language Models
LLM fact-checkers shift trust in political headlines across partisan lines, with perceived chatbot politics mattering only for politically distant true headlines.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
Survey of RLM adoption in 28 disciplines reveals maturity disparities via a new assessment framework, with focus on development, evaluation, and public resources.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
A survey of RLM use in 28 disciplines reveals uneven adoption and introduces a maturity assessment framework showing larger gaps when limited to public resources.
-
Scaling Truth: The Confidence Paradox in AI Fact-Checking
Across LLM fact-checking, model scale correlates with an inverse pattern of accuracy and decisiveness: smaller models are overconfident and less accurate, larger models are accurate but overly cautious.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
A survey of reasoning language model adoption across 28 ERC scientific disciplines finds large maturity gaps, especially when only public resources are counted.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.