Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 307 posts

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#141

Post by whimsicalism »

_Nat_ wrote: post #80

It's important to draw a distinction between positive tonality and censoring negative results. For example, the recent COVID-19 vaccines: they're commonly reported to be 95% effective and have some risk of side-effects. This can be reported factually, or spun in a positive or negative light. For example, a sensationalist might try to stir up interest by spinning a narrative that focuses on the vaccines being unreliab…

> And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings.

We're talking about published research papers, not people posting stuff on twitter. I have not seen anyone get a "cult following" from a research paper.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#143

Post by [deleted] »

curiousllama wrote: post #71
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #46

I deal with this on a regular basis in the research world, there is what is a really toxic and dangerous bias towards constructing the positive, i.e., making things seem, appear, and even fabricate outcomes that will be affirming of desired outcomes or other group biases. It is not research, let alone science when you are striking a positive tone, it’s fraud.

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.

[deleted]

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#144

Post by ddevault »

tempodox wrote: post #132
bite_tongue wrote: post #107

Seems reasonable for a company to not fund research that directly goes against their bottom line.

When the result is predefined it's not research anymore, it's advertisement. Still calling it “research” is fraud.

Exactly. This isn't science. Sometmies science finds uncomfortable results, and if it's not truthful about them, then it's not science.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#145

Post by s3r3nity »

tempodox wrote: post #132
bite_tongue wrote: post #107

Seems reasonable for a company to not fund research that directly goes against their bottom line.

When the result is predefined it's not research anymore, it's advertisement. Still calling it “research” is fraud.

This. Google wants their cake + to eat it to by hiring the best in class Ph.D's with the allure of doing "academic research" but paid a big-tech salary.

Turns out it's mostly PR and buying yourself credibility at this point.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#146

Post by jchallis »

Every specialty has taboos and learning what they are and how to avoid them is part of being successful with the job. As a physics graduate student I made an impassioned case to a high energy researcher that the money spent on high energy research was low yield and should be pushed to the biological sciences ... suffice it to say he did not take my points on their merits. Upton Sinclair’s famous “ It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” applies in the sciences.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#147

Post by _Nat_ »

whimsicalism wrote: post #141
_Nat_ wrote: post #80

It's important to draw a distinction between positive tonality and censoring negative results. For example, the recent COVID-19 vaccines: they're commonly reported to be 95% effective and have some risk of side-effects. This can be reported factually, or spun in a positive or negative light. For example, a sensationalist might try to stir up interest by spinning a narrative that focuses on the vaccines being unreliab…

> And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings. We're talking about published research papers, not people posting stuff on twitter. I have not seen anyone get a "cult following" from a research paper.

It's common for researchers to publish a journal article in a more academic tone, then use it as a basis for legitimacy in public venues.

This happens at both individual and institutional levels. Examples:

1.) At an individual level, someone might publish a study on a social issue that's important to them, adhering to relevant academic standards, then establish a popular identity as the author of that study. Afterwards they can comment on blogs, in media releases, on talk shows, etc., using the perceived credibility established through academic publication to pursue their personal goals.

2.) At an institutional level, someone might publish a study on some issue relevant to an industry, then use it in political lobbying related to that industry as well as popular press to build good-will. Many academics have industrial sponsors for this reason.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#148

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #92
throw_m239339 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever been in a union workplace? why would he want to be in a union when he is a top earner compared to great majority of people in the same country? and aside from a relative freedom of speech he works in very favourable conditions with a lot of perks and a generous severance package if he gets fired? working at google is the very definition of privilege.

Maybe then he would not have to tow every pr line in fear of being dismissed

Heaven help him, though, if he says anything critical of the union. Tire slashing and other forms of intimidation routinely made newspaper headlines in UAW territory in the era before the Big 3 automakers collapsed. At least dismissal doesn't involve people following you to your home.

It isn't businesses that make US unions look bad, they did it to themselves.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#149

Post by sdawodu »

whimsicalism wrote: post #141
_Nat_ wrote: post #80

It's important to draw a distinction between positive tonality and censoring negative results. For example, the recent COVID-19 vaccines: they're commonly reported to be 95% effective and have some risk of side-effects. This can be reported factually, or spun in a positive or negative light. For example, a sensationalist might try to stir up interest by spinning a narrative that focuses on the vaccines being unreliab…

> And as we've seen, sensationalists can get cult followings. We're talking about published research papers, not people posting stuff on twitter. I have not seen anyone get a "cult following" from a research paper.

Allow me to introduce Andrew Wakefield. The father of the antivax movement.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#150

Post by ksec »

mhh__ wrote: post #68
drfuchs wrote: post #9

Consider the historical parallel to the tobacco industry’s research departments. And asbestos. And lead. And talc. And etc. The researchers found that the products were harmful, but their results were squelched. “Do no harm,” indeed.

It seems to be an unfortunate reality of doing research for anything other than the sake of research. My physics teacher worked for some kind of government air pollution modelling group in the past, and effectively said that they would often be told "Here's the result, find us data to make it work".

"The basic rule of Government, never set up an inquiry or research unless you know in advance what its findings will be,"

- Sir Humphrey

Post reply on HN