Within two days, Bender had sent Gebru an outline. They later came up with a title, adding a cheeky emoji for emphasis: “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?”

Gebru assembled a research team for the paper within Google, including her colead Mitchell. In response to the encouraging words in Dean’s annual review, she flagged the paper as an example of the work she was pursuing. “Definitely not my area of expertise,” Dean said, “but would definitely learn from reading it.”

On the Thursday a week before Thanksgiving, after Gebru had submitted the paper to the conference, she received a calendar invite without explanation to meet Megan Kacholia, Google Research’s VP of engineering, over a video call less than three hours later. The meeting lasted only thirty minutes, and Kacholia cut to the point: Gebru needed to retract the paper.

The request was a dramatic aberration from the way Google and the rest of the industry handled research. Like many labs at other companies, Google Brain had until then largely conducted itself as an academic operation and given researchers wide latitude to pursue the questions they wanted to. At times, the company reviewed papers to ensure they didn’t expose sensitive IP or customer data. But researchers like Gebru had never known the company to block or retract a paper simply for shedding light on inconvenient truths. That Google was even willing to pull this move, some researchers would later reflect, was not only because of the new competitive pressure from OpenAI but also because of the work OpenAI had done to legitimize withholding research after GPT-2.

A few hours later, I published a story for MIT Technology Review with the first detailed account of the paper’s contents. The signatories on the open letter would quickly double, reaching nearly 7,000 people from academia, civil society, and industry, including almost 2,700 Google employees. On December 9, as protests continued, Google CEO Sundar Pichai issued an apology. “We need to accept responsibility for the fact that a prominent Black, female leader with immense talent left Google unhappily,” he wrote. “Dr. Gebru is an expert in an important area of AI Ethics that we must continue to make progress on—progress that depends on our ability to ask ourselves challenging questions.”

In her 2019 talk at NeurIPS, during the Queer in AI workshop, Ria Kalluri, an AI researcher at Stanford, proposed an incisive alternative to the question of how to ensure AI does “good.” Goodness, benefit to humanity—these terms will always be in the eye of the beholder. Rather, we should ask how AI shifts power: Does it consolidate or redistribute that power? To put it in the frame of this book, does it continue to fortify the empire, or does it begin to wrest us back toward democracy?

In her talk, Kalluri raised the idea of different axes of power. This book touches on three: knowledge, resources, and influence. As it stands now, OpenAI and its competitor empires have control of each of them: through centralizing talent, eroding open science, and sealing their models from public scrutiny, they control knowledge production; through hoarding funding, data, labor, compute, energy, and land, they control and diminish other people’s resources; through creating and reinforcing ideologies and producing wildly popular demonstrations that captivate global imagination, they command far-reaching influence. Each of these reinforces the other. Controlling knowledge production fuels influence; growing influence accumulates resources; amassing resources secures knowledge production.