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

Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 238 posts

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#31

Post by guhidalg »

skoskie wrote: post #17
mc32 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities have their own biases as well --whether it's to pad one's CV, the PI's CV, or whatever, but they are also not free from interference against 'pure' research. There is a lot of "garbage" research that happens at universities. Yes, we do expect quite a bit of research to be dead-ends --that's the nature of research, but there is a lot of research that is knowingly fraudulent or uses very suspect data and o…

Out of curiosity, are there any institutions that meets a “pure” research standard? NIST? Or is that standard unattainable because undue influence exists everywhere?

Get a private wealthy benefactor that likes your work, then you can avoid undue influence.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#32

Post by buzzthro »

tedivm wrote: post #4

What really kills me is that Google claimed previous papers weren't up to their standard, but then ended up citing them in later papers that they've had press events around. It's really unfortunate that so much of our science is being done at large companies rather than universities, since the companies have a bias towards their bottom line which keeps them from publishing things that might damage that.

I mean, for all we know, those papers could have been cited as "look here's how not to do it or here's how we're different/better". There are positive and negative citations in papers.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#33

Post by thebean11 »

guhidalg wrote: post #31
skoskie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, are there any institutions that meets a “pure” research standard? NIST? Or is that standard unattainable because undue influence exists everywhere?

Get a private wealthy benefactor that likes your work, then you can avoid undue influence.

..until the wealthy benefactor decides to exert it anyway

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#34

Post by haswell »

mc32 wrote: post #10
tedivm wrote: post #4

What really kills me is that Google claimed previous papers weren't up to their standard, but then ended up citing them in later papers that they've had press events around. It's really unfortunate that so much of our science is being done at large companies rather than universities, since the companies have a bias towards their bottom line which keeps them from publishing things that might damage that.

Universities have their own biases as well --whether it's to pad one's CV, the PI's CV, or whatever, but they are also not free from interference against 'pure' research. There is a lot of "garbage" research that happens at universities. Yes, we do expect quite a bit of research to be dead-ends --that's the nature of research, but there is a lot of research that is knowingly fraudulent or uses very suspect data and o…

While true, are these biases impactful in the same ways?

Bias will always exist. The nature of that bias and the degree of impact will vary.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#35

Post by protastus »

tedivm wrote: post #4

What really kills me is that Google claimed previous papers weren't up to their standard, but then ended up citing them in later papers that they've had press events around. It's really unfortunate that so much of our science is being done at large companies rather than universities, since the companies have a bias towards their bottom line which keeps them from publishing things that might damage that.

From an author's perspective, citing a paper is not an endorsement.

For example, a paper's intro might have an overview of how others have attempted to solve a problem before. Citations there will comprise a very concise summary of techniques from others, often pointing out limitations.

From the perspective of a PR team or agency, they aren't in a position to independently evaluate papers, let alone disavow a paper that carries the name of the company.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#36

Post by rank0 »

guhidalg wrote: post #31
skoskie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, are there any institutions that meets a “pure” research standard? NIST? Or is that standard unattainable because undue influence exists everywhere?

Get a private wealthy benefactor that likes your work, then you can avoid undue influence.

Now the influence just comes from the wealthy benefactor and his interests

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#37

Post by [deleted] »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

Obviously don't know the full context of why Satrajit Chatterjee was fired, but I can say that I followed the Timnit Gebru story quite closely, and there was a gigantic chasm, IMO, between what actually happened (and by "what actually happened" I mean that I'm conservatively just considering Gebru's own statements and tweets) and how things were reported in the wider press. The press will always be incentivized to re…

[deleted]

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#38

Post by 21723 »

prepend wrote: post #5

I think this a challenge that seems pretty obvious as scientists working for for profit organizations that don’t have binding ethical frameworks aren’t really free to pursue truth. Just like you wouldn’t expect an Exxon staff scientist to be free to publish a paper independent of Exxon. I think that people who want to properly practice science should avoid working for corporations. Academia and government aren’t comp…

This. And if an AGI is built (unlikely in the next 100 years, IMO) by a for-profit corporation, we are dangerously, dangerously fucked.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#39

Post by guhidalg »

yodon wrote: post #14
mcdermott wrote: post #2

In the corporate world, just like government funded research, science is only science if it aligns with the desires of its funding source unfortunately.

You may want to spend less time reading anti-intellectual media and more time talking to people who actually do academic scientific research. There are many challenges in academic science, but it does a remarkably good job of not falling prey to the strawman risks you believe in. Corporate research is of course subject to the economic interests of the corporation. Academic research is not held back from publishing in…

Does it? I picked the first professor from MIT's CSAIL group (Hal Abelson), found their latest published paper (https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl...) and found that they are funded by a Chinese governmental organization. Tell me how the research isn't being influenced by the needs and desires of the funder?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#40

Post by haswell »

true_religion wrote: post #21
tedivm wrote: post #4

What really kills me is that Google claimed previous papers weren't up to their standard, but then ended up citing them in later papers that they've had press events around. It's really unfortunate that so much of our science is being done at large companies rather than universities, since the companies have a bias towards their bottom line which keeps them from publishing things that might damage that.

Can't you cite things that you disagree with? Or cite background material that you feel is subpar? That would be the norm especially if your research paper is focused on new technology. For example you would write Herbet et co, in Journal Blah found results of X with method Y. However method Y has flaws of A, B, and C... Even if a pervious study was utterly stupid in your opinion, if it's been widely publicized you s…

This was my thought as well. Merely citing the material isn’t necessarily a problem on its own.

The nature of the citation and how that impacts the paper doing the citing would need to be examined to form a meaningful opinion about Google’s behavior here.

Post reply on HN