We haven't read her paper, just an article about it. We can't read it, because google won't let us. That you don't see that as a problem is a little concerning.

The article we are using as reference is a summary of her paper and is literally titled “we read [her] paper” from MIT Technology Review.

What do you suggest might the article be getting wrong about her paper? Or are you suggesting that the information contained about the paper in the article is inherently invalid and should be ignored altogether?

Additionally, according to TFA, it's not Google who don't want the article published. "Bender asked us not to publish the paper itself because the authors didn’t want such an early draft circulating online". Though they were happy to present it at a conference just one day later.

I'm saying that saying her paper was "light in technical substance" when we haven't read it is problematic. Any article such as this is going to be light on technical substance in comparison to the paper itself.

The article states her paper focused on the dangers of large language models: “Environmental and financial costs,” “Massive data, inscrutable models,” and “Research opportunity costs.”

The dangers of large language models is an interesting topic but it’s not AI research and it doesn’t advance the state of the art of AI.

When it comes to technical substance in the field of AI, her paper is indeed lacking in that unless the article completely failed to mention something that would directly qualify as original AI research.

Her job was AI ethics.

That is a good point. It says her field is “AI ethics,” not “AI.” So I have to admit that her paper was in her field.

I also have to say that “AI” is a vastly different area of study than “ethics.” Very strange that Google has these organized in the same hierarchy.

You have to point the alternative costs though.... if non AI trained search, returned worse results, would that waste more energy?

She didn't... which are the hallmark of bad research.

How do you know?

You're reading a non technical summary of an article, and taking it as gospel.

I think I'm going to wait to see the paper before deciding whether or not it's good.

Yes I agree. A substantive analysis of carbon emission should look at multiple countries, multiple industries, multiple companies, and all the outputs from those companies to give a good picture of what types of outputs are the most inefficient w.r.t. carbon emission.