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

261–270 of 307 posts

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

#261

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #234
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.

I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. Whil…

I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts. That attempt to subvert reality was retrofitted onto the situation later, once the consequences of her inappropriate actions had set in for Gebru.

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

#262

Post by jchallis »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #246
jchallis wrote: post #146

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…

How did you know, as a graduate student no less, that research money spent on high energy research was low yield compared to the biological sciences? I think that's a pretty bold and naive statement to make. For example, research on quantum-mechanical light-matter interaction was considered not very practically relevant in the 80s and 90s. In the 2000s the results were picked up by the superconducting qubit research…

I’ll grant you the boldness, naïveté and arrogance of my 2006 self - he could be an insufferable a$$. But looking from the vantage point of 14 years on I think the statement is accurate and that researcher understood why. There was simply nothing on the horizon that remotely held as much promise as Alain Aspect’s and Serge Haroche’s quantum optics work.

Just because I was a graduate student does not automatically mean I was wrong.

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

#263

Post by Barrin92 »

zests wrote: post #190

$COMPANY is a private company and they can censor however they see fit. If you do not like it, you can start your own company and do it your own way. If you agree with this statement for one company you should agree with it for another.

I don't agree with it for any company. When the private sector crowds out basic research and takes over the function of public institutions, there are three reasonable scenarios. 1. they let the researchers do what they want and science goes on, 2. they're regulated so they can't compromise science, 3. they do what Google does, in which case it's time to take the gloves off and go to 2. because the integrity of scientific research for its own sake is more important than whatever corporate dystopia Google is trying to build.

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

#264

Post by joshuamorton »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #261
joshuamorton wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. Whil…

I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts…

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing it as "her departure", and my understanding of California law is that her "departure" would be classified as a dismissal, not a resignation, though ultimately this depends on very particular specifics that aren't public, such as when her last paydate was, however what I've seen seems to suggest that it would lean towards dismissal. [0]

For what its worth, I don't think "threatening to resign" is the same as resignation. Much as I don't think "threatening to shoot someone" is attempted homicide.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-mem...

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

#267

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #264
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts…

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing it as "her departure", and my understanding of California law is that her "departure" would be classified as a dismissal, not a resignation, though ultimately this depends on very particular specifics that aren't public, such as when her last paydate was, howe…

That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

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

#268

Post by joshuamorton »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #267
joshuamorton wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing it as "her departure", and my understanding of California law is that her "departure" would be classified as a dismissal, not a resignation, though ultimately this depends on very particular specifics that aren't public, such as when her last paydate was, howe…

That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

I don't see how the CEO refusing to continue to say she resigned bolsters the claim she resigned.

> calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

Alternatively: publicly calling it a firing is essentially an admission of guilt. That's the one thing Google's lawyers would insist Google cannot do.

Presumably neither one of us are the experts on EEOC and employment litigation strategies. So instead I'm going to take the statements at face value. And at face value: Google is no longer willing to state that Dr.Gebru resigned. Anything else is spin.

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

#269

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #268
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

I don't see how the CEO refusing to continue to say she resigned bolsters the claim she resigned. > calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction. Alternatively: publicly calling it a firing is essentially an admission of guilt. That's the one thing Google's lawyers would insist Google cannot do. Presumably neither one of us are the experts on EEOC and employment litigation stra…

The CEO didn’t refuse to say she resigned. He refused to say she was fired and refused to contradict earlier statements of her resignation.

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

#270

Post by N1H1L »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #201

There are many comments that identify the work by corporate sponsored researchers as fraud and not research. I have the unpopular opinion, and I vehemently disagree. There is no altruistic, sponsored research, no matter of the sponsor, be it corporate, government, non profit, or the Holy See. There is always a specific outcome the sponsor hopes for. The question is, how much pressure the sponsor puts on the researche…

This is just not true, and sounds like someone talking about a field about which they have no idea. NSF mostly for example doesn't give a shit about your results, all it matters to them you publish something (productivity).

I have worked in both academia and national labs and never heard about funders even caring about my results. Far more prevalent is that funders want your publications to be in high IF journals.

Post reply on HN