Snelly's tumbler.edu

Timnit Gebru was fired from Google in December 2020 for refusing to retract a research paper, and every single warning that paper made about large language models has now happened at a scale the industry spent 4 years trying to make people forget about.

Her name is Timnit Gebru.

She co-led the Ethical AI team at Google. She co-wrote a paper called "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" with Emily Bender at the University of Washington and two other researchers. The paper was 14 pages long. It was submitted to a top AI ethics conference. And it was the reason Google decided that one of the most senior Black women in AI research could no longer work there.

The story Google told publicly was that she resigned. The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email while on vacation because she refused to either retract the paper or remove her name from it.

The paper had not even been published yet.

Here is what she actually wrote, and why every prediction inside it has now come true.

The first warning was about scale itself. Bender and Gebru argued that training ever-larger models on ever-larger scrapes of the internet would produce systems that appeared fluent but had no actual understanding of language. They called these systems stochastic parrots because they would repeat patterns from training data with statistical confidence and zero comprehension. The paper predicted that this apparent intelligence would fool both users and developers into trusting outputs that were structurally incapable of being reliable.

This was 2020. GPT-3 had just come out. The paper predicted the hallucination problem before anyone had a word for it.

The second warning was about bias amplification. The paper documented in detail that internet-scale training data contains systematic overrepresentation of dominant viewpoints and underrepresentation of marginalized ones. The models would not just absorb this bias. They would amplify it, because the optimization process rewards confident outputs, and confidence in language patterns tracks frequency in the training set.

The prediction was that hiring tools built on these models would discriminate against women. That healthcare triage tools would underperform on Black patients. That loan approval systems would entrench inequality while presenting their decisions as neutral algorithmic judgment.

Every one of those things has now been documented in deployment.

Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile.

The third warning was about environmental cost. The paper calculated that training a single large language model produced emissions equivalent to the lifetime output of 5 cars. The prediction was that the race to scale would create an environmental footprint that would eventually rival entire industries.

In 2024, Google's emissions were up 48% from 2019, and the company explicitly blamed AI infrastructure. Microsoft's were up 29%, same reason. Both companies have now quietly abandoned the climate commitments they were publicly celebrating the year Gebru was fired.

The fourth warning was about documentation. The paper argued that the training datasets being assembled were too large for anyone to actually audit. Nobody at Google, OpenAI, Meta, or any other lab could tell you with confidence what was in the data their models were trained on. This was not a temporary problem to be solved later. It was a permanent feature of the approach.

In 2023, researchers discovered that the LAION-5B dataset, used to train Stable Diffusion and other major image models, contained thousands of images of child sexual abuse material. The companies that had trained on the dataset had no way of knowing. The paper predicted that category of failure 3 years before it was found.

The fifth warning was the one Google cared about most.

Bender and Gebru argued that the deployment of these systems would centralize linguistic and cultural power in the hands of the small number of companies that could afford to train them. The internet would become a place where the dominant voice was a statistical average of dominant voices, presented as a neutral assistant. Languages underrepresented in the training data would degrade over time as more web content was generated by these systems and fed back into the next training run.

This is now happening in real time. A 2024 study found that 57% of new web content in English is AI-generated or AI-assisted. Researchers studying low-resource languages have documented active degradation in translation quality, because the synthetic content fed back into training is itself worse in those languages.

The paper Google fired her for predicted the model collapse problem before model collapse had a name.

The mechanism behind why this all happened is the part of her work that nobody quotes.

Gebru's argument was not that AI is dangerous in some abstract sci-fi sense. Her argument was that AI is dangerous in a very specific structural sense. The technology was being built by a small group of researchers who shared similar backgrounds, worked at similar companies, and were rewarded for shipping products faster than competitors. The incentive structure made it impossible for safety, ethics, and bias concerns to slow anything down. Anyone inside the system who raised those concerns was either ignored, sidelined, or removed.

She was making that argument from inside Google.

Then Google proved her right by removing her.

The team Google had built to make sure their AI was safe was dismantled in 90 days because they did the job they had been hired to do. Margaret Mitchell, the other co-lead of the Ethical AI team, was fired two months after Gebru for searching through her own emails for evidence of how Gebru had been treated.

Gebru did not stop. She founded DAIR, the Distributed AI Research Institute, in 2021. The mission is to do AI research outside the control of the companies that have a financial interest in not hearing the answers.

Every prediction in the Stochastic Parrots paper has now been validated by deployment. Hallucinations are an industry-wide problem the largest labs cannot solve. Bias amplification has been documented in hiring, healthcare, lending, and criminal justice. Environmental costs are larger than entire small countries. Training data audits remain impossible. Model collapse is an active research crisis at every major lab.

The question worth sitting with is the one almost no one in the industry will say out loud.

Every researcher with the technical credibility to call out these problems watched what happened to her in December 2020 and made a calculation about their own career. The number of people willing to speak publicly about safety and ethics issues inside the major AI labs collapsed after that firing and has not recovered.

The researcher Google fired for warning about exactly what is now happening was right.

The company that fired her is now the second-largest deployer of the technology she warned about.

IT'S JUST!!! THE COLORS!!! THE CHARACTERS' MOVEMENTS!!! THE SUBTLE SETTLES!!! THE WAY HER HAND GUIDES THE VIEWER FROM HER FACE TO HER TAIL REVEAL AND BACK AGAIN!!! THE THIN HAZE OF TEXTURE OVER THE WHOLE THING TO GIVE AN OLD CARTOON FEEL TO IT!?! THE LIP SYNCING!!!?!?!?!

This is one of the most beautiful animations I have seen in forever, and it seems like it was made by just two people!?!?! WHAT

Oouuugghhhh. I watched this like at least 15 times last night. It's just. So Good. Every frame is so visually appealing like I don't even animate nor want to animate and I am still just. ASTOUNDED at how AMAZING this is!!!

This person must have worked so hard to acquire such skill! And it's clear that they care so much about these OCs! This is BEAUTIFUL!!!

And these characters are SO BEAUTIFUL OUUGH. I love her little braids on either side of her head, they're so bouncy and give her this sense of movement and they allude to her devil horns. The way this person draws eyes is so gorgeous. And the FACIAL EXPRESSIONS!!!

I'm so curious about this scene because it happens fairly early in the animation but feels very separate from the rest of her characterization? The braids aren't present but they aren't sometimes in other scenes too so idk if that's intentional or the animator just forgot them. She's also wearing less colorful clothes and is in a less vibrant setting, and of course there's the eye. I'm VERY curious about the eye because I don't know how that could relate to her whole demon thing? Which means she's probably got something ELSE going on and I wanna knowwwww

And then there's her friends and/or partners. We know she's close to these people because they're seen driving together, and we also know there's some kind of love theme going on because it LOOKED like brown-haired girl was teaching something love-related in her classroom scene so my theory is that they're poly lesbians which is AWESOME. Or maybe they're a QPR?

(Also, sidenote, we don't know these characters' names or pronouns yet so I'll be using she/her for all of them and addressing them each as _-haired girl.)

Either way, the setting here is SO GOOD and retro, and the two characters stand out against it so well that your eye is drawn to them even though they aren't in the center of the screen. This is also the first time we see these characters outside of their chibi form in brown-haired girl's head and they too are GORGEOUS. Their designs are so good I love the purple-haired girl's dead-eyed face that she maintains for the whole animation. AND AUBURN-HAIRED GIRL

She's only in this animation for like 10 seconds maybe but she's SO BEAUTIFUL AND AMAZING AND I LOVE HER AND IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS TO HER I'M KILLING EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM AND THEN MYSELF

She's so cute!!! It looks like she's the only human in their group, while her friends are a demon and an angel respectively? I wonder if she knows that they're supernatural? Regardless, I love the alternative girl being the angel, that's cool, especially with her aloof behavior.

I wonder how old these characters are? They look to be young adults to me. I wonder if the classroom setting at the start was just for the love thing or if it alludes to them being teachers? That would fit them I think, both brown-haired and auburn-haired girl look the part and it would certainly be interesting, especially for a romance story which is what this looks to be...

Anyway. Point is. This is BEAUTIFUL. I LOVE THESE CHARACTERS. I need a full indie animated series STAT. If I don't learn more about these characters soon I am going to eat my own arm off.