Cloud Hosting

Research about the influence of computing technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), on society relies heavily upon the financial support of the very companies that produce those technologies. Corporations like Google, Microsoft, and IBM spend millions of dollars each year to sponsor labs, professorships, PhD programs, and conferences in fields like computer science (CS) and AI ethics at some of the worlds top institutions. Industry is the main consumer of academic CS research, and 84% percent of CS professors receive at least some industry funding. All of these factors contribute to the significant influence tech firms wield over the kinds of questions that are and arent asked about their products, and which information is and isnt made available about their social impact.

As consciousness about these conflicts of interest builds, we are seeing growing calls from scholars in and around CS to disentangle the discipline from Big Techs corporate agenda. However, given the extent to which much of CS academia relies on funding from major tech corporations, this is much easier said than done. As I argue below, a more achievable yet valuable goal might be to introduce better safeguards in spaces like conferences to mitigate undue corporate influence over essential research.

I will make my case in two parts. First, in todays post, I will:

In my second post, I will follow up with my recommendations for steps that can be taken to minimize the potential chilling or agenda-setting effects brought on by corporate funding on CS research.

A short survey of concerns about Big Techs influence

Relying on large companies and the resources they control can create significant limitations for the kinds of CS research that are proposed, funded and published. The tech industry plays a large hand in deciding what is and isnt worthy of examination, or how issues are framed. For instance, a tech company might have a very different definition of privacy from that which is used by consumer rights advocates. But if the company is determining the parameters for the kinds of research it wishes to sponsor, it can choose to fund proposals that align with or uphold its own interpretation.

The scope of what is reasonable to study is therefore shaped by what is of value to tech companies. There is little incentive for these corporations to fund academic research about issues that they consider more marginal or which dont relate to their priorities.

A 2020 study on artificial intelligence research found that with respect to AI, firms have increased corporate research significantly, in the form of both company-level publications as well as collaborations with elite universities. This trend was illustrated in an analysis by Birhane et al. of top-cited papers published at premier machine learning conferences, which revealed substantive and increasing corporate presence in that research. In 2018-19, nearly 80% of the annotated papers had some sort of corporate ties, by either author affiliation or funding. Moreover, the analysis found that corporate presence is more pronounced in the conference papers that end up receiving the most citations.

Birhane et al. write, the top stated values of ML such as performance, generalization, and efficiency may not only enable and facilitate the realization of Big Techs objectives, but also suppress values such as beneficence, justice, and inclusion.

One of the most vocal critics of Big Techs capture of CS academia is Meredith Whittaker, a former Google employee-turned Senior Advisor on AI at the Federal Trade Commission. She argues that tech companies, hoping to muffle critics and fend off mounting regulatory pressure, are eager to shape the narrative around their technologies social impact by funding favorable research. This has led to widespread corporate sponsorship of labs, faculty positions, graduate programs, and conferencesall of which are reliant on these companies for not only funding, but often also access to data and computing resources. This industry capture of tech researchwherein corporations are strategically funding research or public campaigns in a way that serves their own agendahas been described by scholars like Thao Phan et al. as philanthrocapitalism.

Furthermore, as Whittaker argues, the tech industrys dominance in CS research threatens to deprive frontline communities, policymakers, and the public of vital knowledge about the costs and consequences of AI and the industry responsible for itright at the time that this work is most needed. Recognizing this threat, other ex-Googlers like Timnit Gebru and Alex Hanna have taken the initiative to launch the Distributed AI Research Institute, in an effort to create space for independent, community-rooted AI research free from Big Techs pervasive influence.

I do wish to make clear that receiving funding from an organization that doesnt completely align with ones values does not necessarily mean ones research is compromised. Corporate funding of AI research is not inherently bad, and academics who do not accept Big Tech money can still produce ethically questionable research. Furthermore, individuals who accept Big Tech funding can still be critical of the corporations products and their influence on society.

However, I agree with academics like Moshe Y. Vardi who argue that we must grapple with the contradictions inherent in accepting funding for research such as AI ethics from companies whose interests may run counter to the public good. In a recent article, Vardi, who is the senior editor of Communications of the ACM(1), urged his colleagues to think more critically about their fields relationship to surveillance-capitalism corporations, writing: The biggest problem that computing faces today is not that AI technology is unethicalthough machine bias is a serious issuebut that AI technology is used by large and powerful corporations to support a business model that is, arguably, unethical.

Analysis: FAGMA companies dominate conference sponsorship

One way to begin to address these conflicts of interest is by reflecting on the conditions of knowledge creation and exchangein spaces such as academic conferencesand thinking critically and openly about the compromises and tradeoffs inherent in accepting funding from the industry that controls the subject of ones study. In the field of computer science, conferences are the primary venue for sharing ones research with others in the discipline. Therefore, sponsoring these gatherings gives firms valuable influence over and insight into whats happening at the cutting edge of topics like machine learning and human-computer interaction.

In an effort to get a better understanding of who the major players are in this realm, I reviewed the websites for the top 25 CS conferences (based on H-5 index and impact score) to compile information about all of the organizations that have financially supported them between 2019 and 2021. I found that a majority of the most frequent and most generous sponsors, often donating tens of thousands of dollars per conference, were powerful technology companies.

This spreadsheet contains sponsorship data for the top 25 most frequent sponsors (2). Of the 10 sponsors who supported the largest numbers of different conferences in the past three years, five are FAGMA companies (Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Apple)six if you count DeepMind, a subsidiary of Googles parent company Alphabet. No non-profit organizations, government science funding agencies, or sponsors from outside the U.S. or China appeared among the top 10.

Overall, among the most frequent and most generous supporters of the top 25 CS conferences, the only non-tech/non-corporate donor was the National Science Foundation, which sponsored five different conferences (11 total gatherings) with donations typically ranging between $15,000 and $25,000.

In addition to having their company name and logo listed on conference promotional materials, top sponsors (who often give upwards of $50,000) receive perks such as opportunities to sponsor prizes or students grants, complimentary registrations and private meeting rooms, access to databases of conference registrants interested in recruitment opportunities, virtual booths or priority exhibition spaces, advertising opportunities and press support, and access to attendee metrics on exhibitor dashboards. A Hero Sponsor who gave $50,000 or more to the 2021 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), for example, would have received 34 different benefits which cumulatively create opportunities for continuous access to and influence on attendees throughout the event.

It is difficult to get an accurate estimate of exactly how much money each company donates to these conferences, as these numbers are not consistently reported to the public. Some conferences only publish a list of supporters with no details about how much each one gave. Others assign sponsorship levels such as Platinum or Diamond, but the monetary value associated with each level varies by conference and year. When dollar amounts are provided, they often represent a potential range of several thousand dollarsfor instance, a Platinum Sponsor of the 2021 SIGMOD/PODS conference might have given anywhere between $16,000 and $31,999. Furthermore, it is difficult gain insight into how exactly these funds are used.

Given the extent of financial entanglement between Big Tech and academia, it might be unrealistic to expect CS scholars to completely resist accepting any industry fundinginstead, it may be more practicable to make a concerted effort to establish higher standards for and greater transparency regarding sponsorship.

In Part 2 of this article, I will recommend steps that can be taken to minimize the potential chilling or agenda-setting effects brought on by corporate funding on CS research.

(1) Six of the top 25 CS conferences in the world are organized by ACM, the Association for Computing Machinery. Between 2019 and 2021, many of those conferences were largely funded by American tech companies like Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, IBM, and Microsoft, and Chinese ones like Alibaba, Baidu, ByteDance, and Huawei.

(2) I have compiled a conference sponsorship database that includes extensive data that is not included in this spreadsheet. If you are interested in reviewing it, or in collaborating on further data collection, I would be happy to share it privately.

Many, many thanks to Prof. Arvind Narayanan and Karen Rouse for their thoughtful guidance on and support with this piece.

The rest is here:

The tech industry controls CS conference funding. What are the dangers? - Freedom to Tinker