Strangely (or not) there's no reference made to their AI ethics team as being in any way contributing towards this "AI revolution". Maybe because that team was sacked or moved around a few years back - https://www.wired.com/story/google-timnit-gebru-ai-what-real...
There's no comparison in importance. The "revolution" as described is technological and cultural, both of which are underpinned by transformers and represented by gpt3+ (particularly ChatGPT). The ethical questions have become more culturally prominent as a result of that revolution.
It's also misleading to describe them as having been sacked - the political machinations that some of the ethics team involved themselves in to the point of employer conflict were heavily discussed here at the time.
> the political machinations that some of the ethics team involved themselves in to the point of employer conflict were heavily discussed here at the time.
It certainly seems like some of that ethics team appear, at best, as extremely bad faith actors in that drama.
The article notes how other Googlers have faced factual review in paper releases and what Jeff Dean did here was clearly something else. Google leadership moved against the Ethics team at a time of high uncertainty: COVID rates were spiking, the stock market had become extremely distorted, there had been a summer of massive protests, Bezos was leaving Amazon.. this was Google leadership being greedy.
> It's also misleading to describe them as having been sacked
Officially they were fired without cause.
It’s important to compare how Google handled the employment of their Ethics team with that of Anthony Levandowski, who was allowed to instigate an accident on the freeway on the job, left with a over-$100m bonus, and has thus far thwarted jail time and most of Google’s attempts to recoup what they paid him. Levandowski had lots of approval directly from Larry Page, and Page was aware of the risks. In contrast, Jeff Dean never respected the Ethics team in a similar capacity.
I'm sure there's all sorts of comparisons you could make; the point remains the ethics team - whatever their merits as individuals and importance generally - were relatively unimportant compared to the engineers and scientists in this particular revolution, and describing them as having been sacked was misleading.
Whatever many many bad things Anthony Levandowski may have done, he picked up his own check in Google. The guy developed street view for example.
Their AI ethics team appears, at least to a Google outsider, to engage almost exclusively in rent seeking behavior. I'm surprised many of them continue to pick up a paycheck.
Perhaps the church of Al can throw a few bucks the way of the recently not-fired-but-no-longer-employed AI ethics crew, similar levels of grift going on in each.
Automated neural architecture search would have eventually found the transformer, and better architectures. Reading the paper, the names of the vectors (QKV) seem dressed up to imply that the authors know how exactly a transformer actually works, but I am not convinced. It just seems to me these folks where the first to stumble upon it. They didn’t invent self-attention, either. Right place, right time, tons of free TPU to experiment with.
