Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
120 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

From Protoscience to Epistemic Monoculture: How Benchmarking Set the Stage for the Deep Learning Revolution (2404.06647v2)

Published 9 Apr 2024 in cs.CY, cs.AI, and cs.LG

Abstract: Over the past decade, AI research has focused heavily on building ever-larger deep learning models. This approach has simultaneously unlocked incredible achievements in science and technology, and hindered AI from overcoming long-standing limitations with respect to explainability, ethical harms, and environmental efficiency. Drawing on qualitative interviews and computational analyses, our three-part history of AI research traces the creation of this "epistemic monoculture" back to a radical reconceptualization of scientific progress that began in the late 1980s. In the first era of AI research (1950s-late 1980s), researchers and patrons approached AI as a "basic" science that would advance through autonomous exploration and organic assessments of progress (e.g., peer-review, theoretical consensus). The failure of this approach led to a retrenchment of funding in the 1980s. Amid this "AI Winter," an intervention by the U.S. government reoriented the field towards measurable progress on tasks of military and commercial interest. A new evaluation system called "benchmarking" provided an objective way to quantify progress on tasks by focusing exclusively on increasing predictive accuracy on example datasets. Distilling science down to verifiable metrics clarified the roles of scientists, allowed the field to rapidly integrate talent, and provided clear signals of significance and progress. But history has also revealed a tradeoff to this streamlined approach to science: the consolidation around external interests and inherent conservatism of benchmarking has disincentivized exploration beyond scaling monoculture. In the discussion, we explain how AI's monoculture offers a compelling challenge to the belief that basic, exploration-driven research is needed for scientific progress. Implications for the spread of AI monoculture to other sciences in the era of generative AI are also discussed.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (108)
  1. Abbott, Andrew. 1981. “Status and Status Strain in the Professions.” American Journal of Sociology 86:819–835. Publisher: University of Chicago Press.
  2. “The growing influence of industry in AI research.” Science 379:884–886. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  3. AlQuraishi, Mohammed. 2020. “AlphaFold2 @ CASP14: “It feels like one’s child has left home.”.”
  4. Andrej Karpathy. 2022. “Deep Neural Nets: 33 years ago and 33 years from now.”
  5. “Simple Models in Complex Worlds: Occam’s Razor and Statistical Learning Theory.” Minds and Machines 32:13–42.
  6. “Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the classical bias–variance trade-off.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116:15849–15854.
  7. “Impossibility theorems for feature attribution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121:e2304406120. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  8. Bloor, David. 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  9. “Comparison of classifier methods: a case study in handwritten digit recognition.” In Proceedings of the 12th IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Vol. 3-Conference C: Signal Processing (Cat. No. 94CH3440-5), volume 2, pp. 77–82. IEEE.
  10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press. Google-Books-ID: 5cgxLnbZjhcC.
  11. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Polity. Google-Books-ID: ZvsN0SyhiDAC.
  12. Breiman, Leo. 2001. “Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author).” Statistical Science 16:199–231. Publisher: Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
  13. Bush, Vannevar. 2021. “Science, the Endless Frontier.” In Science, the Endless Frontier. Princeton University Press.
  14. “Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases.” Science 356:183–186. Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  15. Cetina, Karin Knorr. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
  16. “Opinion: Protein folds vs. protein folding: Differing questions, different challenges.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120:e2214423119.
  17. “Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference.” arXiv:2403.04132 [cs].
  18. “Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translation.” arXiv:1406.1078 [cs, stat].
  19. CITRIS. 2014. “Keynote Hubert Dreyfus.”
  20. Cohen, Paul R. and Adele E. Howe. 1988. “How Evaluation Guides AI Research: The Message Still Counts More than the Medium.” AI Magazine 9:35–35. Number: 4.
  21. Cole, Stephen. 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: AusBqjmZM9AC.
  22. Collins, Harry. 1992a. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Collins, H. M. 1981. “The Place of the ‘Core-Set’ in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety in Science.” History of Science 19:6–19. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  24. Collins, H. M. 1998. “The Meaning of Data: Open and Closed Evidential Cultures in the Search for Gravitational Waves.” American Journal of Sociology 104:293–338. Publisher: The University of Chicago Press.
  25. Collins, Randall. 1992b. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: 2HS1DOZ35EgC.
  26. Collins, Randall. 1994. “Why the Social Sciences Won’t Become High-Consensus, Rapid-Discovery Science.” Sociological Forum 9:155–177. Publisher: [Wiley, Springer].
  27. “Falsificationism and Statistical Learning Theory: Comparing the Popper and Vapnik-Chervonenkis Dimensions.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 40:51–58.
  28. Crevier, Daniel. 1993. AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence. Pages: 386.
  29. Cybenko, G. 1989. “Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function.” Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 2:303–314.
  30. “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database.” In 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 248–255. ISSN: 1063-6919.
  31. Dotan, Ravit. 2021. “Theory choice, non-epistemic values, and machine learning.” Synthese 198:11081–11101.
  32. Dreyfus, Hubert L. 2012. “A History of First Step Fallacies.” Minds and Machines 22:87–99.
  33. Feigenbaum, Edward. 1989. “Interview Conducted by William Aspray.” .
  34. Forsythe, Diana. 2001. Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Artificial Intelligence. Stanford University Press. Google-Books-ID: orNUzuFQeLgC.
  35. “Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies.” American Sociological Review 80:875–908. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  36. Fujimura, Joan H. 1992. “Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation.”.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, pp. 168–211. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Gershgorn, Dave. 2017. “The data that transformed AI research—and possibly the world.” Quartz .
  38. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press.
  39. Graves, Alex and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2008. “Offline handwriting recognition with multidimensional recurrent neural networks.” Advances in neural information processing systems 21.
  40. Gu, Albert and Tri Dao. 2023. “Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces.”
  41. “Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition.” arXiv:1512.03385 [cs].
  42. Hoffman, Steve G. 2017. “Managing Ambiguities at the Edge of Knowledge: Research Strategy and Artificial Intelligence Labs in an Era of Academic Capitalism.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 42:703–740. Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
  43. Hull, David L. 2001. Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge University Press.
  44. Jasanoff, Sheila and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva 47:119–146. Publisher: Springer.
  45. Kitcher, Philip. 1995. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
  46. “Reduced, Reused and Recycled: The Life of a Dataset in Machine Learning Research.”
  47. “The Evolutionary Dynamics of Cultural Change (As Told Through the Birth and Brutal, Blackened Death of Metal Music).”
  48. Krizhevsky, Alex. 2009. Learning Multiple Layers of Features from Tiny Images. Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto.
  49. Kuhn, Thomas S. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Google-Books-ID: 3eP5Y_OOuzwC.
  50. Lamont, Michele. 2009. How Professor Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  51. Langley, Pat. 1987. “Research Papers in Machine Learning.” Machine Learning 2:195–198.
  52. Langley, Pat and Dennis Kibler. 1997. “The Experimental Study of Machine Learning.” .
  53. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press. Google-Books-ID: sC4bk4DZXTQC.
  54. Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. 2013. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press.
  55. “The complementary contributions of academia and industry to AI research.” arXiv:2401.10268 [cs].
  56. “Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews.” arXiv:2403.07183 [cs].
  57. Lohr, Steve. 2020. “Universities and Tech Giants Back National Cloud Computing Project.” The New York Times .
  58. “Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?” arXiv:2311.16863 [cs].
  59. McCarthy, John. 1984. “We Need Better Standards for Artificial Intelligence Research: President’s Message.” AI Magazine 5:7–7. Number: 3.
  60. “A Proposal For The Darmouth Summer Research Program on Artificial Intelligence.” .
  61. McCorduck, Pamela. 2004. Machines who think: a personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial intelligence. Natick, Mass: A.K. Peters, 25th anniversary update edition.
  62. McCulloch, Warren S. and Walter Pitts. 1943. “A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity.” The bulletin of mathematical biophysics 5:115–133.
  63. McMullin, Ernan. 1982. “Values in Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:2–28. Publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  64. McMullin, Ernan. 2013. “The Virtues of a Good Theory.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. Routledge, 2 edition. Num Pages: 11.
  65. “Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality.” Advances in neural information processing systems 26.
  66. Minsky, Marvin and Seymour A. Papert. 1969. Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry. The MIT Press.
  67. Mitchell, Melanie. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, first edition edition.
  68. Netflix. 2009. “Netflix Prize: Forum / Grand Prize awarded to team BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos.”
  69. Nicoletti, Leonardo and Dina Bass Technology + Equality. 2023. “Humans Are Biased. Generative AI Is Even Worse.” Bloomberg.com .
  70. Oreskes, Naomi. 2021. Science on a Mission: How Military Funding Shaped What We Do and Don’t Know about the Ocean. University of Chicago Press.
  71. Panofsky, Aaron. 2014. Misbehaving Science: Controversy and the Development of Behavior Genetics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  72. Peterson, David. 2015. “All That Is Solid: Bench-Building at the Frontiers of Two Experimental Sciences.” American Sociological Review 80:1201–1225.
  73. Peterson, David and Aaron Panofsky. 2021. “Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication.” Social Studies of Science 51:583–605. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  74. Peterson, David and Aaron Panofsky. 2023. “Metascience as a Scientific Social Movement.” Minerva 61:147–174.
  75. Pierce, J. R. 1969. “Whither Speech Recognition?” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 46:1049–1051.
  76. Polanyi, Michael. 1962. “Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 34:601–616. Publisher: American Physical Society.
  77. “The republic of science: its political and economic theory Minerva, I (1)(1962), 54-73.” Minerva 38:1–32. Publisher: JSTOR.
  78. Rahimi, Ali and Benjamin Recht. 2007. “Random Features for Large-Scale Kernel Machines.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 20. Curran Associates, Inc.
  79. Rahimi, Ali and Benjamin Recht. 2017. “Reflections on Random Kitchen Sinks.”
  80. “Large-scale deep unsupervised learning using graphics processors.” In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 873–880, Montreal Quebec Canada. ACM.
  81. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  82. Roland, Alex and Philip Shiman. 2002. Strategic computing: DARPA and the quest for machine intelligence, 1983-1993. History of computing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  83. Rosenblatt, F. 1958. “The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.” Psychological Review 65:386–408. Place: US Publisher: American Psychological Association.
  84. “Learning representations by back-propagating errors.” Nature 323:533–536. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  85. “Dynamic Routing Between Capsules.” arXiv:1710.09829 [cs].
  86. “Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117:8398–8403. Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  87. Salisbury, Emma. 2020. “A Cautionary Tale on Ambitious Feats of AI: The Strategic Computing Program.”
  88. Schank, Roger C. 1987. “What Is AI, Anyway?” AI Magazine 8:59–59. Number: 4.
  89. Schank, Roger C. 1991. “Where’s the AI?” AI Magazine 12:38–38. Number: 4.
  90. Shazeer, Noam. 2020. “GLU Variants Improve Transformer.” arXiv:2002.05202 [cs, stat].
  91. “Using benchmarking to advance research: a challenge to software engineering.” In 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings., pp. 74–83. ISSN: 0270-5257.
  92. Simon, Herbert A. 1975. “The functional equivalence of problem solving skills.” Cognitive Psychology 7:268–288.
  93. Simon, Herbert A. 1995. “Artificial intelligence: an empirical science.” Artificial Intelligence 77:95–127.
  94. Simon, Herbert A. and Allen Newell. 1958. “Heuristic Problem Solving: The Next Advance in Operations Research.” Operations Research 6:1–10. Publisher: INFORMS.
  95. Small, Zachary. 2023. “Sarah Silverman Sues OpenAI and Meta Over Copyright Infringement.” The New York Times .
  96. Stefik, Mark. 1985. “Strategic computing at DARPA: Overview and assessment.” Communications of the ACM 28:690–704. Publisher: ACM New York, NY, USA.
  97. “Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models.” arXiv:2307.09288 [cs].
  98. Valiant, L. G. 1984. “A theory of the learnable.” Communications of the ACM 27:1134–1142.
  99. Vapnik, Vladimir N. 2000. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. New York, NY: Springer.
  100. “Attention is All you Need.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc.
  101. Vries, Alex de. 2023. “The growing energy footprint of artificial intelligence.” Joule 7:2191–2194. Publisher: Elsevier.
  102. Watts, Duncan J. 2014. “Common Sense and Sociological Explanations.” American Journal of Sociology 120:313–351. Publisher: The University of Chicago Press.
  103. Winograd, Terry. 1971. “Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Language.” Accepted: 2004-10-20T20:29:48Z.
  104. Winston, Patrick H. 1970. “Learning Structural Descriptions from Examples.” Accepted: 2004-10-20T20:04:22Z.
  105. “BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model.” arXiv:2211.05100 [cs].
  106. Yelp. ???? “Yelp Dataset.”
  107. Yoshua Bengio. 2017. “The Mind of the Universe.”
  108. Zuboff, Shoshana. 2015. “Big other: Surveillance Capitalism and the Prospects of an Information Civilization.” Journal of Information Technology 30:75–89. Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.