The Dangers of Underclaiming: Reasons for Caution When Reporting How NLP Systems Fail
This addresses a communication issue for NLP researchers and stakeholders, with incremental suggestions for improvement.
The paper tackles the problem of NLP researchers underclaiming system failures, which leads to misleading claims about technology limits, harming credibility and hindering harm mitigation and future preparedness.
Researchers in NLP often frame and discuss research results in ways that serve to deemphasize the field's successes, often in response to the field's widespread hype. Though well-meaning, this has yielded many misleading or false claims about the limits of our best technology. This is a problem, and it may be more serious than it looks: It harms our credibility in ways that can make it harder to mitigate present-day harms, like those involving biased systems for content moderation or resume screening. It also limits our ability to prepare for the potentially enormous impacts of more distant future advances. This paper urges researchers to be careful about these claims and suggests some research directions and communication strategies that will make it easier to avoid or rebut them.