The Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science) of Stochastic Parrots -- A Plea for Science to NOT take the Route Advocated by Gebru and Bender

TL;DR

This paper criticizes the ethical stance and scientific rigor of the 'Stochastic Parrots' paper, warning against uncritical advocacy in AI research without considering trade-offs or clear presuppositions.

Contribution

It offers a critical perspective on the ethical debate in AI, emphasizing the need for transparent, balanced, and scientifically rigorous discourse.

Findings

The 'Parrot Paper' lacks acknowledgment of its advocacy nature.

It omits critical presuppositions and cost/benefit analysis.

Calls for more rigorous scientific standards in AI ethics discussions.

Abstract

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.