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

About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 607 posts

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#121

Post by skissane »

fatbird wrote: post #90
skissane wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they strike me as the sort of thing that is routinely addressed in the camera-ready version of papers by adding a few lines to the related work section What I don't understand is why in the discussion nobody proposed amending the paper rather than withdrawing it. If Dean's issue was it didn't cite papers X,Y and Z, rather than demand a withdrawal, why didn't he just demand "I want you to amend the paper to add cite…

In Timnit's account, she said she asked for specific feedback so it could be addressed and the paper published; this was denied to her and is part of her complaint over which she resigned.

One thing I don't understand about this situation is which of the following was she denied:

(1) the substance of the feedback and actionable specifics (e.g. "you didn't cite X")

(2) the actual text of the feedback (if it was given in written form)

If she was denied (1), I agree that is grossly unfair. If she was denied (2) but granted (1), I don't think that is so unreasonable. If feedback is anonymous, sharing its exact text can give away who gave it (you can often work out who wrote something just from the style of language the author used, especially if these are people you know and work closely with.)

If she was given actionable specifics ("add a cite to X"), then knowing who it came from and the exact text of it is irrelevant and I don't think she has a right to it. If she was denied actionable specifics, that is grossly unfair to her. I think one difficulty is that her account makes it sound like she was denied that, Dean's makes it sound like she wasn't, I wasn't there so I don't know whose account is more accurate.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#122

Post by sbarre »

bmitc wrote: post #78
petulla wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This response really seems like gaslighting. He doesn't address her concerns and glosses over whether she was held to a different standard than others at GR.

He was also extremely vague, perhaps intentionally, about what the issue actually was. His sentence about when the paper was submitted and approved and all that is impossible to parse and make sense of who did what and when.

Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and obligations are, and I'm sure Google's lawyers are also getting all their ducks in a row.

This is spin at best, gaslighting at worst. We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)..

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#123

Post by [deleted] »

bnj wrote: post #5

While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. Even if Google is acting presenting the chain of events faithfully, their final move to jump on an opport…

[deleted]

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#124

Post by lokar »

gcr wrote: post #8
drfuchs wrote: post #6

My researcher acquaintances at industry labs at IBM, Microsoft, HP, Xerox, ATT, Bell, DEC, Compaq, etc. never have had to have their papers reviewed internally before submitting them to conferences or journals. What's up with Google?

Until now, nobody on my previous team at Google had to have their papers reviewed internally for scientific rigour either. (We have a publication approval process, but its purpose is to prevent IP leaks and maybe shield liability, not uphold scientific rigour standards)

I've seen Urs reject papers out of Tech Infra that he thought were not interesting enough

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#125

Post by that_guy_iain »

nebulous1 wrote: post #97
that_guy_iain wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. I wouldn't say this has blown up in their face. But to be honest, I've not seen that much drama about i…

> If someone says "Do X or I'll quit" when you're not going to do X, it is a resigination I mean, whether or not this stands up legally isn't worth discussing but I don't think this is typically how an ultimatum goes. Rather it's more along the lines of "this or I'll quit", "okay, we're not doing this", "right, I quit". It's not called calling your bluff for nothing. I agree that her email to the Brain group makes he…

> However, it might make her choose not to fight them on the resignation.

How can she fight? Just curious, the US is almost completely an at will employment. Fighting to get your name dirted that you didn't resign but were fired, seems odd. Google seems to saving face for her if anything.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#126

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

trhway wrote: post #72
theobeers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the examples of issues flagged in review that Jeff keeps highlighting—like Timnit’s alleged failure to mention recent work to reduce the environmental impact of large models—are themselves a bit worrisome. Jeff gives the impression that they demanded retraction (!) because they wanted Timnit and her coauthors to soften their critique. The more I read about this, the worse it looks.

Google isnt publicly funded academic institution. Whatever they are doing, in particular publishing, is part of the business/PR. So if the management sees something not good for business it is a reasonable that they decided to not do it. If i were a shareholder i can see how i may have questioned why a person being paid $1M+/year (my understanding this is minimum what a manager in AI at Google would be making) for pu…

In most cases, yes. In this case, because the paper was about bias in Google's AI models, it might not be just a business decision because the racial bias described in that paper might result in a disparate impact on users, which could be in violation of state or federal law.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#127

Post by sillysaurusx »

spinningslate wrote: post #93

I don't know Jeff Dean. I have read some of his work, watched some of his presentations. He seems a credible bloke. This, though, looks and feels like thinly-veiled retroactive and pretty unconvincing PR. It's short on detail and appears somewhat at odds with several points from Timnit Gebru's resignation note [0]: - Dean says the paper was reviewed by a "cross-functional team". Gebru says she received the feedback t…

Dean says the paper was submitted for review on the day it was due to be published; Gebru says they had notified "PR & Policy 2 months before".

Wait, really? That’s an important detail if true. The one-day timeline was a central part of the narrative surrounding this story. Notifying them two months ahead of time makes this a completely different situation.

I’m a bit skeptical. Could this claim be verified somehow? Since it’s very public news at this point, we may as well try to be rigorous.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#130

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #99
noitpmeder wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what else they should have done? This researcher made some ultimatum. As part of it, she said if Google refused, she would set a date to leave the company. Google obviously did not concede to her demand, and obviously didn't think it beneficial to let her be a thorn any longer, so took her up on her offer.

She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.

Seriously, I'm kinda a little wondering how people expect that when someone makes an extremely demanding ultimatum that includes challenging the rights of other people in the company, and the company declines to agree to that ultimatum, that we should be shocked that the person doesn't get to dictate all of the details around their resignation.

What I get most from this whole discussion is the extremely nauseating level of entitlement from some employees at Google.

Post reply on HN