Despite advances in large language model capabilities in recent years, a large gap remains in their capabilities and safety performance for many languages beyond a relatively small handful of globally dominant languages. This paper provides researchers, policymakers and governance experts with an overview of key challenges to bridging the "language gap" in AI and minimizing safety risks across languages. We provide an analysis of why the language gap in AI exists and grows, and how it creates disparities in global AI safety. We identify barriers to address these challenges, and recommend how those working in policy and governance can help address safety concerns associated with the language gap by supporting multilingual dataset creation, transparency, and research.

Ensembling is commonly regarded as an effective way to improve the general performance of models in machine learning, while also increasing the robustness of predictions. When it comes to algorithmic fairness, heterogeneous ensembles, composed of multiple model types, have been employed to mitigate biases in terms of demographic attributes such as sex, age or ethnicity. Moreover, recent work has shown how in multi-class problems even simple homogeneous ensembles may favor performance of the worst-performing target classes. While homogeneous ensembles are simpler to implement in practice, it is not yet clear whether their benefits translate to groups defined not in terms of their target class, but in terms of demographic or protected attributes, hence improving fairness. In this work we show how this simple and straightforward method is indeed able to mitigate disparities, particularly benefiting under-performing subgroups. Interestingly, this can be achieved without sacrificing overall performance, which is a common trade-off observed in bias mitigation strategies. Moreover, we analyzed the interplay between two factors which may result in biases: sub-group under-representation and the inherent difficulty of the task for each group. These results revealed that, contrary to popular assumptions, having balanced datasets may be suboptimal if the task difficulty varies between subgroups. Indeed, we found that a perfectly balanced dataset may hurt both the overall performance and the gap between groups. This highlights the importance of considering the interaction between multiple forces at play in fairness.

At face value, this essay is about understanding a fairly esoteric governance tool called compute thresholds. However, in order to grapple with whether these thresholds will achieve anything, we must first understand how they came to be. This requires engaging with a decades-old debate at the heart of computer science progress, namely, is bigger always better? Hence, this essay may be of interest not only to policymakers and the wider public but also to computer scientists interested in understanding the role of compute in unlocking breakthroughs. Does a certain inflection point of compute result in changes to the risk profile of a model? This discussion is increasingly urgent given the wide adoption of governance approaches that suggest greater compute equates with higher propensity for harm. Several leading frontier AI companies have released responsible scaling policies. Both the White House Executive Orders on AI Safety (EO) and the EU AI Act encode the use of FLOP or floating-point operations as a way to identify more powerful systems. What is striking about the choice of compute thresholds to-date is that no models currently deployed in the wild fulfill the current criteria set by the EO. This implies that the emphasis is often not on auditing the risks and harms incurred by currently deployed models - but rather is based upon the belief that future levels of compute will introduce unforeseen new risks. A key conclusion of this essay is that compute thresholds as currently implemented are shortsighted and likely to fail to mitigate risk. Governance that is overly reliant on compute fails to understand that the relationship between compute and risk is highly uncertain and rapidly changing. It also overestimates our ability to predict what abilities emerge at different scales. This essay ends with recommendations for a better way forward.

Quantization techniques are widely used to improve inference speed and deployment of large language models. While a wide body of work examines the impact of quantized LLMs on English tasks, none have examined the effect of quantization across languages. We conduct a thorough analysis of quantized multilingual LLMs, focusing on their performance across languages and at varying scales. We use automatic benchmarks, LLM-as-a-Judge methods, and human evaluation, finding that (1) harmful effects of quantization are apparent in human evaluation, and automatic metrics severely underestimate the detriment: a 1.7% average drop in Japanese across automatic tasks corresponds to a 16.0% drop reported by human evaluators on realistic prompts; (2) languages are disparately affected by quantization, with non-Latin script languages impacted worst; and (3) challenging tasks such as mathematical reasoning degrade fastest. As the ability to serve low-compute models is critical for wide global adoption of NLP technologies, our results urge consideration of multilingual performance as a key evaluation criterion for efficient models.

The first day of The Rising 2020 started with an informal session with Sara Hooker, a researcher at Google Brain where she shared some of her personal reflections on how to navigate in the field of machine learning and why we need to celebrate failures as well as success. Sara started her session with a simple story where she shared her childhood dream of being featured in the magazine, The Economist. In fact, she mentioned that "one of my goals was to eventually be an economist." However, when that happened in 2016, it wasn't a pleasing feeling for Sara; instead, it was a feeling of "unease" and seemed problematic. A lot of this could be attributed to the article that The Economist did, which profiled the efforts of fast.ai, a course that's run by Jeremy Howard and Rachel Thomas, and utilised Sara as an example of their success.

In this, the first episode of the Deep Learning Indaba series, we're joined by Sara Hooker, AI Resident at Google Brain. I had the pleasure of speaking with Sara in the run-up to the Indaba about her work on interpretability in deep neural networks. We discuss what interpretability means and when it's important, and explore some nuances like the distinction between interpreting model decisions vs model function. We also dig into her paper Evaluating Feature Importance Estimates and look at the relationship between this work and interpretability approaches like LIME. We also talk a bit about Google, in particular, the relationship between Brain and the rest of the Google AI landscape and the significance of the recently announced Google AI Lab in Accra, Ghana, being led by friend of the show Moustapha Cisse.