Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Ecosystem Graphs: The Social Footprint of Foundation Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.15772 v1 pith:H3DWYIWW submitted 2023-03-28 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CY

Rishi Bommasani , Dilara Soylu , Thomas I. Liao , Kathleen A. Creel , Percy Liang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CY
keywords ecosystemgraphsmodelssocialapplicationsassetsattentiondatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Foundation models (e.g. ChatGPT, StableDiffusion) pervasively influence society, warranting immediate social attention. While the models themselves garner much attention, to accurately characterize their impact, we must consider the broader sociotechnical ecosystem. We propose Ecosystem Graphs as a documentation framework to transparently centralize knowledge of this ecosystem. Ecosystem Graphs is composed of assets (datasets, models, applications) linked together by dependencies that indicate technical (e.g. how Bing relies on GPT-4) and social (e.g. how Microsoft relies on OpenAI) relationships. To supplement the graph structure, each asset is further enriched with fine-grained metadata (e.g. the license or training emissions). We document the ecosystem extensively at https://crfm.stanford.edu/ecosystem-graphs/. As of March 16, 2023, we annotate 262 assets (64 datasets, 128 models, 70 applications) from 63 organizations linked by 356 dependencies. We show Ecosystem Graphs functions as a powerful abstraction and interface for achieving the minimum transparency required to address myriad use cases. Therefore, we envision Ecosystem Graphs will be a community-maintained resource that provides value to stakeholders spanning AI researchers, industry professionals, social scientists, auditors and policymakers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Correlated Errors in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Large language models from different providers and architectures often make the same errors, and more accurate models are especially likely to share mistakes.

  2. The AI Agent Index

    cs.SE 2025-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    The AI Agent Index catalogs 67 deployed agentic AI systems and shows that most developers publicly disclose little about safety policies and evaluations.

  3. Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains

    cs.CY 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The redress available after an AI supply chain harm is determined by whether stakeholders can agree on a remedy and whether that remedy is technically, legally, and financially achievable.

  4. Analysis of Indic Language Capabilities in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A desk-research review finds that LLM performance is strongest for Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Telugu, and Tamil, and recommends prioritizing these five languages for safety benchmarks.

  5. Position: Open and Closed Large Language Models in Healthcare

    cs.CY 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In healthcare research, closed LLMs like GPT-4 are used mainly for high-accuracy imaging and diagnostics, while open LLMs like LLaMA are used for customized applications such as mental health chatbots.

  6. Large Language Model Safety: A Holistic Survey

    cs.AI 2024-12 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A broad survey of LLM safety that groups the literature into four risk areas and four related areas, with a taxonomy and a public repository of papers, but no new empirical results.

Pith tools