AIMLNov 20, 2024

No Free Delivery Service: Epistemic limits of passive data collection in complex social systems

arXiv:2411.13653v11 citationsh-index: 1NIPS
Originality Highly original
AI Analysis

This addresses a fundamental epistemic issue in AI validation, impacting all of ML/AI by challenging core assumptions in model evaluation.

The paper demonstrates that the train-test paradigm is invalid for risk estimators in complex social systems, showing that we cannot know if models are valid under current data collection practices, with examples from recommender systems and large language models.

Rapid model validation via the train-test paradigm has been a key driver for the breathtaking progress in machine learning and AI. However, modern AI systems often depend on a combination of tasks and data collection practices that violate all assumptions ensuring test validity. Yet, without rigorous model validation we cannot ensure the intended outcomes of deployed AI systems, including positive social impact, nor continue to advance AI research in a scientifically sound way. In this paper, I will show that for widely considered inference settings in complex social systems the train-test paradigm does not only lack a justification but is indeed invalid for any risk estimator, including counterfactual and causal estimators, with high probability. These formal impossibility results highlight a fundamental epistemic issue, i.e., that for key tasks in modern AI we cannot know whether models are valid under current data collection practices. Importantly, this includes variants of both recommender systems and reasoning via large language models, and neither naïve scaling nor limited benchmarks are suited to address this issue. I am illustrating these results via the widely used MovieLens benchmark and conclude by discussing the implications of these results for AI in social systems, including possible remedies such as participatory data curation and open science.

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes