This might come across as a bit unkind- which is fine because it's meant to be- but I think that Leahy used an AI to search through papers on the TESCREAL ideologies minus references to two very specific people. Leahy was too lazy to rearrange the acronym into anything original so he just removed the 'C', as well as Dr Emil P. Torres and Dr Timnit Gebru.
Credit should be given where due, it’s unfortunate that it seems to not be happening (at least thus far, hopefully Leahy will respond and correct this.) The challenge we always face is that those with reach and influence aren’t always in the same group as those with the analytic capability. The former should always credit the latter especially when it’s clear they know the source. Thing is these days ideas travel separate from their originators and often faster; this is the first time I’ve realized that the original idea here was yours and Gebru’s, even though I’ve heard the framework before. Knowing this now, at least I’ll do my best to point y’all out as the source (for whatever that’s worth.)
Lastly, and I know you didn’t ask for any advice, so feel free to dismiss my input here: I think that unfortunately those creating the ideas have to be more aggressive about branding and ownership these days. It may not have been in your personality as a researcher, but that might have meant initially calling it the “Torres-Gebru Framework” or the “Torres-Gebru ASI critique” rather than TESCREAL. It might have been just as good or better than the acronym, which doesn’t seem to work as well as it could: Leahy dropped the C (intentionally or not), and honestly I and others, especially first timers, still have to go look up what each stands for anyway. I understand at this point the TESCREAL name has several years of legs so you can’t change it now, but perhaps consider it to protect your future work; where original, one deserves the credit. At least some of us can try to call it “Torres & Gebru’s TESCREAL framework.” Anyway, hope it resolves in a positive way overall for all involved. On the plus side, y’all’s thinking is helping to frame the conversation!? So that’s a bit of silver lining?
Good post. Unfortunate to hear the lack of credit, but at the very least, this write up served as a great crash course and introduction to the body of your work.
Based on Leahy's statements in his interview on Democracy Now yesterday, I would wager a guess that he's not thinking entirely outside the TESCREAL ideological sphere, and perhaps that dark money he's getting isn't entirely outside of it either:
I was hoping Dr. Gebru's appearance on Democracy Now last week might herald a sea change in DN's coverage of AI, which has been... increasingly wince-inducing, if I'm being kind.
On the first page of Google, there are only two articles about this -- one of which you linked to. No headlines. No major outlets covering it. No one really cared beyond his university. Wikipedia says, present tense:
Étienne Klein is a Research director at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA).[1] He is currently head of the Laboratoire des Recherches sur les Sciences de la Matière (LARSIM), a research laboratory belonging to the CEA and located in Saclay near Paris.
Hi Émile, french here. You're right about E Klein, he's still very much employed, including radio shows on national radio, as if nothing happened. There was also the case of two very famous pop-science communicators who were awarded a totally bogus Phd thesis. I was a lot worse than plagiarism (but they did that too), and they still retained some credibility, even to this day after their death (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_et_Grichka_Bogdanoff).
Some people care of course, but it's hard to deny double-standards.
Thanks a lot for your work, by the way. We can't know yet, but that's the kind of effort that might help shape the future. That's a reward in itself.
This might come across as a bit unkind- which is fine because it's meant to be- but I think that Leahy used an AI to search through papers on the TESCREAL ideologies minus references to two very specific people. Leahy was too lazy to rearrange the acronym into anything original so he just removed the 'C', as well as Dr Emil P. Torres and Dr Timnit Gebru.
Entirely possible! We can't know until he musters up the courage to respond. :-0
damn this is so bad… sorry…
Credit should be given where due, it’s unfortunate that it seems to not be happening (at least thus far, hopefully Leahy will respond and correct this.) The challenge we always face is that those with reach and influence aren’t always in the same group as those with the analytic capability. The former should always credit the latter especially when it’s clear they know the source. Thing is these days ideas travel separate from their originators and often faster; this is the first time I’ve realized that the original idea here was yours and Gebru’s, even though I’ve heard the framework before. Knowing this now, at least I’ll do my best to point y’all out as the source (for whatever that’s worth.)
Lastly, and I know you didn’t ask for any advice, so feel free to dismiss my input here: I think that unfortunately those creating the ideas have to be more aggressive about branding and ownership these days. It may not have been in your personality as a researcher, but that might have meant initially calling it the “Torres-Gebru Framework” or the “Torres-Gebru ASI critique” rather than TESCREAL. It might have been just as good or better than the acronym, which doesn’t seem to work as well as it could: Leahy dropped the C (intentionally or not), and honestly I and others, especially first timers, still have to go look up what each stands for anyway. I understand at this point the TESCREAL name has several years of legs so you can’t change it now, but perhaps consider it to protect your future work; where original, one deserves the credit. At least some of us can try to call it “Torres & Gebru’s TESCREAL framework.” Anyway, hope it resolves in a positive way overall for all involved. On the plus side, y’all’s thinking is helping to frame the conversation!? So that’s a bit of silver lining?
Great job here defending the truth of the historical record here. 👍
Good post. Unfortunate to hear the lack of credit, but at the very least, this write up served as a great crash course and introduction to the body of your work.
Based on Leahy's statements in his interview on Democracy Now yesterday, I would wager a guess that he's not thinking entirely outside the TESCREAL ideological sphere, and perhaps that dark money he's getting isn't entirely outside of it either:
https://youtu.be/v99DkPP6LVY
I was hoping Dr. Gebru's appearance on Democracy Now last week might herald a sea change in DN's coverage of AI, which has been... increasingly wince-inducing, if I'm being kind.
"no one cares when white men repackage other people’s ideas as their own"
That's just utterly untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass
https://www.science.org/content/article/french-physicist-and-media-star-loses-doctorate-after-plagiarism-investigation
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2012/07/31/the-fall-of-jonah-lehrer/
On the first page of Google, there are only two articles about this -- one of which you linked to. No headlines. No major outlets covering it. No one really cared beyond his university. Wikipedia says, present tense:
Étienne Klein is a Research director at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA).[1] He is currently head of the Laboratoire des Recherches sur les Sciences de la Matière (LARSIM), a research laboratory belonging to the CEA and located in Saclay near Paris.
Hi Émile, french here. You're right about E Klein, he's still very much employed, including radio shows on national radio, as if nothing happened. There was also the case of two very famous pop-science communicators who were awarded a totally bogus Phd thesis. I was a lot worse than plagiarism (but they did that too), and they still retained some credibility, even to this day after their death (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_et_Grichka_Bogdanoff).
Some people care of course, but it's hard to deny double-standards.
Thanks a lot for your work, by the way. We can't know yet, but that's the kind of effort that might help shape the future. That's a reward in itself.
👀