Live data from Hacker News

You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

argmin.net

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#11

Just a quick note: 'Dual Affiliation' is being used here differently than in most academic contexts, so the headline's a bit odd. Normally, it means having a joint appointment in two academic departments (e.g. Linguistics and Cognitive Science at State U, or in the Department of Linguistics at State U, with an appointment at the Head-and-Neck surgery program at the local med school). This is a well-known and common p…

I think particularly in the case of FAIR, this is a response to Facebook being outspoken about "dual affiliation" with their AI researchers, so it's a response really to Facebook specifically.

https://www.facebook.com/yann.lecun/posts/10155435964892143

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#12
I think an important factor is the salary disparity. Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, academic salaries cannot provide an upper middle-class lifestyle anymore. Academics are only human and it is natural to want the lifestyle all of their peers from grad school, college (or even their recently graduated student who works for FAANG) seem to enjoy. Unless academic salaries in CS increase significantly (and match say, business school salaries), this trend will continue.

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#13

I find the idea odd. if you want to contribute to academic research create a grant(s) with your budget.

Then they wouldn't own the research and the resultant capabilities by default. Yes they do and might continue open sourcing most of their research, but they have right of first refusal to publish, which is really the most important piece.

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#14
snip snip:

> The proposal harms our students directly. Our faculty at their best secure everyone’s future by teaching talented students how to understand the challenges facing the broader world. Such mentorship is enriched by the courage, independence, security, and trained judgement of senior scholars to guide students’ perspectives on what is worth doing, what is likely irrelevant, and what is wrong. Engaging with a student body requires an all-in commitment, both in teaching and advising roles. Faculty primarily working elsewhere means cancelled classes. Faculty wedded to a company means advice that’s colored by the interest of the company.

I'm not sure I agree with the implications of what follows the first sentence in the paragraph above - these are rather broad generalizations.

Academia may certainly help students understand challenges of the larger world but in my experience this is as mixed a bag as other settings: working in the private sector, working in non-profits and volunteering.

Finally, faculty working elsewhere seems like a very common thing. I've hired academics as consultants in the past and worked in companies where this was common and seemed encouraged by their universities. Note that they weren't primarily working for us - so this is a good distinction - but it also begs for a more clear definition of what "All-in commitment" means above.

(edits : grammar etc)

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#15
You can’t do disruptive entrepreneurism if 80% of what you do is owned by a big company.

This should be the headline.

The most critical issue here is Intellectual Property. In academia the IP is owned by the academic institution and has traditionally found its way into published research before being put through a technology transfer office or taken out of the universities by their creator. Don't forget Stanford still gets HUGE annuities from their licensing of the tech to Brin/Page[1].

Alternatively, corporations own the IP from any research from the outset, and history would indicate that trade secrets or patents that can monopolize a technology made from the research, will be pursued before or simultaneous to any publishing in research journals.

You have to pay one of them eventually if you want to make a product with it. So the question is, do we want corporations or academic institutions being the primary driver/owner of new knowledge?

Or is it just totally pragmatic, and we let the one with the most money win?

[1]https://www.redorbit.com/news/education/318480/stanford_earn...

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#16
post #8

Seems more like 80% industry 20% spy to me.

As a person working like 40% academy, 60% industry, I'd say it is in reverse: you get to 'spy' on industry's knowledge and practice and transplant it into academic setting, where it is very likely publishable.

[deleted]

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#17
I feel lots of this applies to Open Source too. The notion of wearing the company or community hat is pretty common, and often used to persuade others of your good intentions.

The number of times I've read a sentence that started with something similar to "Wearing my community hat, .." and felt the sentence was anything but community orientated is way higher than I would like. I'm sure a certain percentage of this is actually my own biases, but I'm also pretty sure that percentage isn't 100%.

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#18
post #9

The bulk of academic work is chasing grants, not "curiosity driven research". If universities want professors not to leave in droves to tech companies that will consistently give them funding and cut away the bullshit that eats up the majority of a professor's time, they should try competing, rather than bemoaning that professors are no longer following the sacred path of academic asceticism.

I do not think this is what the piece is arguing. Rather, the concern is that by creating these 80/20 splits, the core values of the university are compromised. There's nothing a priori wrong with industrial research, it's this attempted hybrid that's problematic. Hence the title, "you cannot serve two masters".

Quoting the piece, "Part of the point of being a big company is to control your environment by crushing, containing, or co-opting inconvenient innovations." I think the author is arguing that attitude is fundamentally at odds with the values of the academy.

Re: You Cannot Serve Two Masters: The Harms of Dual Affiliation

#20
post #9

The bulk of academic work is chasing grants, not "curiosity driven research". If universities want professors not to leave in droves to tech companies that will consistently give them funding and cut away the bullshit that eats up the majority of a professor's time, they should try competing, rather than bemoaning that professors are no longer following the sacred path of academic asceticism.

Top conferences accept papers with a large expected impact, not necessarily papers the authors were really curious about. It's deeper than merely what time is spent on, it's also where accolades are given. The facebook thing shows real problems to the researchers and provides good data, good starts to high impact papers.
Post reply on HN