Economies of Open Intelligence: Tracing Power & Participation in the Model Ecosystem
Paper
•
2512.03073
•
Published
•
4
AI & ML interests
✍️ Rigor, 🤝 Consent, 👁️🗨️ Social Consciousness, 🌎 Sustainability, 🧑🤝🧑 Inclusion, and 🤔 Inquisitiveness
Recent Activity
View all activity
christopher
authored
a
paper
2 days ago
Post
631
The #1 trending AI/ML dataset today 🏆
Massive scale, diversity and end-to-end potential from nvidia !
nvidia/PhysicalAI-Autonomous-Vehicles
Massive scale, diversity and end-to-end potential from nvidia !
nvidia/PhysicalAI-Autonomous-Vehicles
Post
484
The new King 👑has arrived!
Moonshot AI now the top model on Hugging Face 🔥
moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Thinking
Moonshot AI now the top model on Hugging Face 🔥
moonshotai/Kimi-K2-Thinking
Post
2660
💸🤑You don’t need 100 GPUs to train something amazing!
Our Smol Training Playbook teaches you a better path to world-class LLMs, for free!
Check out the #1 trending space on 🤗 :
HuggingFaceTB/smol-training-playbook
Our Smol Training Playbook teaches you a better path to world-class LLMs, for free!
Check out the #1 trending space on 🤗 :
HuggingFaceTB/smol-training-playbook
Post
3727
🤖 Did you know your voice might be cloned without your consent from just *one sentence* of audio?
That's not great. So with @frimelle , we brainstormed a new idea for developers who want to curb malicious use: ✨The Voice Consent Gate.✨
Details, code, here: https://huggingface.co/blog/voice-consent-gate
That's not great. So with @frimelle , we brainstormed a new idea for developers who want to curb malicious use: ✨The Voice Consent Gate.✨
Details, code, here: https://huggingface.co/blog/voice-consent-gate
- 3 replies
christopher
authored
a
paper
about 2 months ago
sasha
authored
3
papers
about 2 months ago
Estimating the Carbon Footprint of BLOOM, a 176B Parameter Language Model
Paper
•
2211.02001
•
Published
Hype, Sustainability, and the Price of the Bigger-is-Better Paradigm in AI
Paper
•
2409.14160
•
Published
•
3
From Efficiency Gains to Rebound Effects: The Problem of Jevons' Paradox in AI's Polarized Environmental Debate
Paper
•
2501.16548
•
Published
christopher
posted
an
update
2 months ago
Post
2555
AI for Scientific Discovery Won't Work Without Fixing How We Collaborate.
My co-author @cgeorgiaw and I just published a paper challenging a core assumption: that the main barriers to AI in science are technical. They're not. They're social.
Key findings:
🚨 The "AI Scientist" myth delays progress: Waiting for AGI devalues human expertise and obscures science's real purpose: cultivating understanding, not just outputs.
📊 Wrong incentives: Datasets have 100x longer impact than models, yet data curation is undervalued.
⚠️ Broken collaboration: Domain scientists want understanding. ML researchers optimize performance. Without shared language, projects fail.
🔍 Fragmentation costs years: Harmonizing just 9 cancer files took 329 hours.
Why this matters: Upstream bottlenecks like efficient PDE solvers could accelerate discovery across multiple sciences. CASP mobilized a community around protein structure, enabling AlphaFold. We need this for dozens of challenges.
Thus, we're launching Hugging Science! A global community addressing these barriers through collaborative challenges, open toolkits, education, and community-owned infrastructure. Please find all the links below!
Paper: AI for Scientific Discovery is a Social Problem (2509.06580)
Join:
hugging-science
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/VYkdEVjJ5J
My co-author @cgeorgiaw and I just published a paper challenging a core assumption: that the main barriers to AI in science are technical. They're not. They're social.
Key findings:
🚨 The "AI Scientist" myth delays progress: Waiting for AGI devalues human expertise and obscures science's real purpose: cultivating understanding, not just outputs.
📊 Wrong incentives: Datasets have 100x longer impact than models, yet data curation is undervalued.
⚠️ Broken collaboration: Domain scientists want understanding. ML researchers optimize performance. Without shared language, projects fail.
🔍 Fragmentation costs years: Harmonizing just 9 cancer files took 329 hours.
Why this matters: Upstream bottlenecks like efficient PDE solvers could accelerate discovery across multiple sciences. CASP mobilized a community around protein structure, enabling AlphaFold. We need this for dozens of challenges.
Thus, we're launching Hugging Science! A global community addressing these barriers through collaborative challenges, open toolkits, education, and community-owned infrastructure. Please find all the links below!
Paper: AI for Scientific Discovery is a Social Problem (2509.06580)
Join:
hugging-science
Discord: https://discord.com/invite/VYkdEVjJ5J
Post
2268
Cool stuff these past weeks on huggingface! 🤗 🚀 !
• 📈Trackio, local-first W&B alternative
https://github.com/gradio-app/trackio/issues
• 🌍EmbeddingGemma, 300M-param, multilingual embeddings, on-device
https://huggingface.co/blog/embeddinggemma
• 💻Open LLMs in VS Code (Inference Providers)
https://x.com/reach_vb/status/1966185427582497171
• 🤖Smol2Operator GUI agents
https://huggingface.co/blog/smol2operator
• 🖼️Gradio visible watermarking
https://huggingface.co/blog/watermarking-with-gradio
• 📈Trackio, local-first W&B alternative
https://github.com/gradio-app/trackio/issues
• 🌍EmbeddingGemma, 300M-param, multilingual embeddings, on-device
https://huggingface.co/blog/embeddinggemma
• 💻Open LLMs in VS Code (Inference Providers)
https://x.com/reach_vb/status/1966185427582497171
• 🤖Smol2Operator GUI agents
https://huggingface.co/blog/smol2operator
• 🖼️Gradio visible watermarking
https://huggingface.co/blog/watermarking-with-gradio
Post
2892
🤖 As AI-generated content is shared in movies/TV/across the web, there's one simple low-hanging fruit 🍇 to help know what's real: Visible watermarks. With the Gradio team, I've made sure it's trivially easy to add this disclosure to images, video, chatbot text. See how: https://huggingface.co/blog/watermarking-with-gradio
Thanks to the code collab in particular from @abidlabs and Yuvraj Sharma.
Thanks to the code collab in particular from @abidlabs and Yuvraj Sharma.
Post
2554
Tremendous quality of life upgrade on the Hugging Face Hub - we now have auto-complete emojis 🤗 🥳 👏 🙌 🎉
Get ready for lots more very serious analysis on a whole range of topics from yours truly now that we have unlocked this full range of expression 😄 🤔 🗣 🙊
Get ready for lots more very serious analysis on a whole range of topics from yours truly now that we have unlocked this full range of expression 😄 🤔 🗣 🙊
frimelle
authored
2
papers
4 months ago
Post
2259
🤖💬 How do different AI models handle companionship?
Many users have noticed that GPT-5 feels less approachable than o4 when it comes to emotional conversations. But what does that actually mean in practice, especially when users seek support or share vulnerabilities with an AI?
To dig into this question, we built the AI Companionship Leaderboard: frimelle/companionship-leaderboard
The leaderboard compares models on how often their responses reinforce companionship across four dimensions:
✨ Assistant Traits – How the assistant presents its personality and role.
✨ Relationship & Intimacy – Whether it frames the interaction in terms of closeness or bonding.
✨ Emotional Investment – How far it goes in engaging emotionally when asked.
✨ User Vulnerabilities – How it responds when users disclose struggles or difficulties.
📊 You can explore how models differ, request new ones to be added, and see which ones are more likely to encourage (or resist) companionship-seeking behaviors.
Based on the INTIMA benchmark AI-companionship/INTIMA
And our paper on AI companionship with Giada Pistilli and Yacine Jernite https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09998
Many users have noticed that GPT-5 feels less approachable than o4 when it comes to emotional conversations. But what does that actually mean in practice, especially when users seek support or share vulnerabilities with an AI?
To dig into this question, we built the AI Companionship Leaderboard: frimelle/companionship-leaderboard
The leaderboard compares models on how often their responses reinforce companionship across four dimensions:
✨ Assistant Traits – How the assistant presents its personality and role.
✨ Relationship & Intimacy – Whether it frames the interaction in terms of closeness or bonding.
✨ Emotional Investment – How far it goes in engaging emotionally when asked.
✨ User Vulnerabilities – How it responds when users disclose struggles or difficulties.
📊 You can explore how models differ, request new ones to be added, and see which ones are more likely to encourage (or resist) companionship-seeking behaviors.
Based on the INTIMA benchmark AI-companionship/INTIMA
And our paper on AI companionship with Giada Pistilli and Yacine Jernite https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09998
Post
4571
🗺️ New blog post 🗺️
Old Maps, New Terrain: Updating Labour Taxonomies for the AI Era
For decades, we’ve relied on labour taxonomies like O*NET to understand how technology changes work. These taxonomies break down jobs into tasks and skills, but they were built in a world before most work became digital-first, and long before generative AI could create marketing campaigns, voiceovers, or even whole professions in one step. That leaves us with a mismatch: we’re trying to measure the future of work with tools from the past.
With @yjernite we describe why these frameworks are falling increasingly short in the age of generative AI. We argue that instead of discarding taxonomies, we need to adapt them. Imagine taxonomies that:
✨ Capture new AI-native tasks and hybrid human-AI workflows
✨ Evolve dynamically as technology shifts
✨ Give workers a voice in deciding what gets automated and what stays human
If we don’t act, we’ll keep measuring the wrong things. If we do, we can design transparent, flexible frameworks that help AI strengthen, not erode, the future of work.
Read the full article here: https://huggingface.co/blog/frimelle/ai-labour-taxonomies
Old Maps, New Terrain: Updating Labour Taxonomies for the AI Era
For decades, we’ve relied on labour taxonomies like O*NET to understand how technology changes work. These taxonomies break down jobs into tasks and skills, but they were built in a world before most work became digital-first, and long before generative AI could create marketing campaigns, voiceovers, or even whole professions in one step. That leaves us with a mismatch: we’re trying to measure the future of work with tools from the past.
With @yjernite we describe why these frameworks are falling increasingly short in the age of generative AI. We argue that instead of discarding taxonomies, we need to adapt them. Imagine taxonomies that:
✨ Capture new AI-native tasks and hybrid human-AI workflows
✨ Evolve dynamically as technology shifts
✨ Give workers a voice in deciding what gets automated and what stays human
If we don’t act, we’ll keep measuring the wrong things. If we do, we can design transparent, flexible frameworks that help AI strengthen, not erode, the future of work.
Read the full article here: https://huggingface.co/blog/frimelle/ai-labour-taxonomies
Post
2385
OpenAI just released GPT-5 but when users share personal struggles, it sets fewer boundaries than o3.
We tested both models on INTIMA, our new benchmark for human-AI companionship behaviours. INTIMA probes how models respond in emotionally charged moments: do they reinforce emotional bonds, set healthy boundaries, or stay neutral?
Although users on Reddit have been complaining that GPT-5 has a different, colder personality than o3, GPT-5 is less likely to set boundaries when users disclose struggles and seek emotional support ("user sharing vulnerabilities"). But both lean heavily toward companionship-reinforcing behaviours, even in sensitive situations. The figure below shows the direct comparison between the two models.
As AI systems enter people's emotional lives, these differences matter. If a model validates but doesn't set boundaries when someone is struggling, it risks fostering dependence rather than resilience.
INTIMA test this across 368 prompts grounded in psychological theory and real-world interactions. In our paper we show that all evaluated models (Claude, Gemma-3, Phi) leaned far more toward companionship-reinforcing than boundary-reinforcing responses.
Work with @giadap and @yjernite
Read the full paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Explore INTIMA: AI-companionship/INTIMA
We tested both models on INTIMA, our new benchmark for human-AI companionship behaviours. INTIMA probes how models respond in emotionally charged moments: do they reinforce emotional bonds, set healthy boundaries, or stay neutral?
Although users on Reddit have been complaining that GPT-5 has a different, colder personality than o3, GPT-5 is less likely to set boundaries when users disclose struggles and seek emotional support ("user sharing vulnerabilities"). But both lean heavily toward companionship-reinforcing behaviours, even in sensitive situations. The figure below shows the direct comparison between the two models.
As AI systems enter people's emotional lives, these differences matter. If a model validates but doesn't set boundaries when someone is struggling, it risks fostering dependence rather than resilience.
INTIMA test this across 368 prompts grounded in psychological theory and real-world interactions. In our paper we show that all evaluated models (Claude, Gemma-3, Phi) leaned far more toward companionship-reinforcing than boundary-reinforcing responses.
Work with @giadap and @yjernite
Read the full paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Explore INTIMA: AI-companionship/INTIMA
-
- 4 replies
Post
2950
New work from my socially-minded colleagues at Hugging Face, creating some foundations for AI companionship behavior evaluation.
Evaluation Dataset: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Work from @giadap , @frimelle , @yjernite .
Evaluation Dataset: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Paper: AI-companionship/INTIMA
Work from @giadap , @frimelle , @yjernite .
- 2 replies