Skip to content
Computational Pathology Reading Roadmap

Writing study: Position: Irresponsible AI: big tech’s influence on AI research and associated impacts

← ICML 2026 oral writing corpus

Alex Hernández-Garcı́a, Alexandra Volokhova, Ezekiel Williams, Dounia Shaaban Kabakibo, Mélisande Teng · Official ICML 2026 oral record

Figure, table and section ledger

Editorial contribution type: Position & research agenda (primary).

Layout extraction, not a required paper template. Counts are distinct caption labels; a multi-panel figure counts once. Section spans are estimated from heading positions, including floats and whitespace. Method and limitations.

Canonical PDF
18 physical pages
Before references / appendix
≈ 9.3 page-equivalents
Main figures / tables
2 / 0
Attached appendix figures / tables
0 / 0
Attached appendix span
≈ 0.91 page-equivalents
Before references / appendix: ≈ 51.67%References / intervening material: ≈ 43.28%Attached appendix: ≈ 5.06%Estimated layout envelopes, not text/artwork area. Unresolved appendix boundaries remain within the undivided post-body material.

Source-bound correction: Join wrapped printed heading text using adjacent source lines; original heading start coordinates are unchanged.

Section-by-section lengths and source pages

The title/abstract/front matter precede the first numbered heading. A span ends at the next detected top-level heading, not at the last sentence; end-page whitespace is included. References and statements are listed separately. These are not measurements of text-only or artwork area.

Top-level headingStarts on PDF pageEstimated spanShare of entire PDF
1. Introduction1≈ 1.02 pp.5.67%
2. How does big tech influence AI?2≈ 2.26 pp.12.56%
3. How does big tech contribute to irresponsible AI?4≈ 1.27 pp.7.06%
4. What influences big tech?5≈ 1.03 pp.5.72%
5. Call to action: How can we mitigate big tech’s irresponsible influence?6≈ 1.67 pp.9.28%
6. Alternative Views8≈ 1.15 pp.6.39%
7. Conclusion9≈ 0.31 pp.1.72%
Acknowledgements10≈ 0.11 pp.0.61%
Impact Statement10≈ 0.14 pp.0.78%
References10≈ 7.79 pp.43.28%
A. Analysis on the publications at NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR18≈ 0.91 pp.5.06%
All detected figure and table locations

Main text

Attached appendix

    No recognized caption labels.

    Argument and organization

    1. 1 Introduction; 2 Influence; 3 Impacts

      States the position and organizes evidence about institutional influence and societal/environmental consequences.

    2. 4 Economic drivers; 5 Call to action

      Links incentives to the proposed mechanisms and differentiates individual, institutional and collective responses.

    3. 6 Alternative Views; 7 Conclusion

      Addresses progress, environmental accounting, reform priorities and alternative actors before restating the bounded position.

    Problem, claim and contribution

    The abstract explicitly presents a position and previews influence, impacts, underlying incentives and researcher action rather than promising a new predictive method.

    Abstract and Introduction, p.1 · Main paper

    Argument and section order

    Question-led section titles turn a broad normative thesis into a causal-argument sequence, followed by a dedicated Alternative Views section.

    Sections 2-6, pp.2-9 · Main paper

    Figures, captions and visual explanation

    The manuscript labels its hand-drawn conceptual image as an artistic summary; a separate affiliation chart reports totals and percentages, preserving a distinction between illustration and quantitative evidence.

    Figures 1-2, pp.2-3 · Main paper

    Tables, comparisons and evidence

    The publication analysis acknowledges that absolute counts grow while affiliation shares decline after their peaks, avoiding a simple monotonic-share narrative.

    Section 2, p.2; Figure 2, p.3 · Main paper

    Appendix and reproducibility

    The affiliation appendix records the keyword definition, data sources and roughly 1.3–3.2 percent unprocessed papers per year, exposing a coverage limit of the quantitative support.

    Appendix A, p.18 · Main paper

    Clarity and writing conventions

    The counterarguments concede that top-down reform can matter and leave some broader economic alternatives open; recommendations vary with researchers’ institutional power and circumstances.

    Section 5, pp.7-8; Section 6, pp.8-9 · Main paper

    What to reuse—and what not to infer

    Transferable lesson: For a position paper, distinguish the thesis, supporting observations and action proposals, and give serious alternatives their own argumentative space.

    Boundary: This is an advocacy-oriented synthesis, not a causal identification study; affiliation counts do not by themselves prove the proposed mechanisms, and cited factual claims were not independently re-audited.

    Apply this lesson using the argument and evidence worksheet.

    Inspection record and sources

    Checked
    2026-10-07
    Reading status
    Writing-focused manuscript scan + selected visuals inspected
    Main text
    Writing-oriented scan of the main argument through physical p.9, with focused physical-page text inspection on 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9. Framing, section progression, mechanism/proof explanation, displays, comparison conditions and conclusions were inspected. This is not exhaustive technical reading, proof verification or reproduction.
    Appendix / supplement
    Appendix organization and main-text pointers were checked; focused text inspection of physical pages 18. Remaining appendix proofs and details were not exhaustively read. No separately linked supplement inspected.
    Visually inspected PDF pages
    2, 3

    This is a writing-focused scan of the manuscript and the stated supplementary scope: framing, organization, visual explanation, evidence presentation and wording. It is not a line-by-line proof audit, reproduction of results or exhaustive scientific review.