Thinking Geographically about AI Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Driven by foundation models, recent progress in AI and machine learning has reached unprecedented complexity. For instance, the GPT-3 language model consists of 175 billion parameters and a training-data size of 570 GB. While it has achieved remarkable performance in generating text that is difficult to distinguish from human-authored content, a single training of the model is estimated to produce over 550 metric tons of CO2 emissions. Likewise, we see advances in GeoAI research improving large-scale prediction tasks like satellite image classification and global climate modeling, to name but a couple. While these models have not yet reached comparable complexity and emissions levels, spatio-temporal models differ from language and image-generation models in several ways that make it necessary to (re)train them more often, with potentially large implications for sustainability. While recent work in the machine learning community has started calling for greener and more energy-efficient AI alongside improvements in model accuracy, this trend has not yet reached the GeoAI community at large. In this work, we bring this issue to not only the attention of the GeoAI community but also present ethical considerations from a geographic perspective that are missing from the broader, ongoing AI-sustainability discussion. To start this discussion, we propose a framework to evaluate models from several sustainability-related angles, including energy efficiency, carbon intensity, transparency, and social implications. We encourage future AI/GeoAI work to acknowledge its environmental impact as a step towards a more resource-conscious society. Similar to the current push for reproducibility, future publications should also report the energy/carbon costs of improvements over prior work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".