About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by trhway » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

albatruss wrote: post #106

trhway wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From a certain narrow, selfish perspective it's reasonable for Google to not want to have an AI ethics department placing a check on their leading edge research at all. Fortunately, we don't live in a world where corporations are the ones to determine right from wrong with total impunity.

> AI ethics department placing a check on their leading edge research

that reminds how in USSR each non-miniscule factory, organization, etc. had "the department #1" - it was an ideological check and control department which at sufficiently large/important organizations even included KGB officers.

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

#162

Post by lostmsu » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #105

sidlls wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of peer review it’s common, or at least not uncommon, for reviewers to be anonymous. Personally I think it should be completely blind both directions to promote maximum objectivity. Whether that applies at all in this case is a separate matter.

True, but it's also the norm that peer reviewer's feedback is provided to allow the author the address issues. In Timnit's account, she received neither identities nor the feedback itself.

This is incorrect, she did receive the feedback, then demanded the source to be deanonimized.

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

#163

Post by kneel » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

mstg wrote: post #117

bgribble wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to her Twitter feed, Timnit was asking for the same transparency that normally goes with Google pub reviews -- where all the reviewers and their feedback are known to the reviewee. This red-stamp "review" did not follow the normal review process. Not a Googler, just going on what she says: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334881120920498180

Considering her previous attacks to anyone who disagrees with her and her previous public feuds, I'd say people may be afraid of being stamped as a racist/sexist because they had to reject her paper. She was a disruptive employee who threatened her employer and the employer didn't accept it. Why is Google obliged to keep her employed?

There are many people in SV that are very quick to bring up race, gender and diversity whenever a dispute arises. It's becoming predictable to the point of being problematic.

As a POC myself, I understand there is a time and place for this.. and it definitely isn't all the time, publicly, on social media.

I fear that people like Timnit are inappropriately wielding justice rhetoric to benefit their own careers, at the cost of actual injustices that may occur to others. This is just my opinion.

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

#164

Post by greatwhitenorth » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

Every "woke" company in SV is going to go through this. I really want to know how "diversity' will help someone build a software company say a CRM app. How does a skin color/race help with that? If ideas of a different race matter, why should they be employees and not found through user testing/customer feedback? Coinbase, Google, keep it rolling.. No fully remote company has to go through this bullshit.

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

#165

Post by aylmao » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #86

wilde wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.

"Do X or I'll quit" is a childish way to negotiate, its akin to a child throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way. It's extremely unprofessional and not something a team player would do. I think its clear why they took her up on her offer.

> "Do X or I'll quit" is a childish way to negotiate

I disagree with this. It's really the only way to negotiate, pretty common. The wording is important here. If you word it as "Do X or I'll quit" it sounds childish, if you word it as "I believe the company should X, otherwise I can't see myself working here comfortably and will have to consider my resignation" it sounds professional, but the idea is the exact same.

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

#166

Post by brown9-2 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

throawaydmg wrote: post #24

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of…

Do you work in an environment where design or code review feedback is anonymous? So why would it be the case for internal peer review of a paper?

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

#167

Post by paijiut » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

I don't know why Google is bothering to say anything. It's pretty obvious that those who support the person who left have anchored their opinions and won't change under any circumstances, and those defending Google are anchored as well.

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

#168

Post by brown9-2 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

hartator wrote: post #9

It sadden me that they make Jeff Dean work on these kind of issues. His map/reduce invention brought to the world a lot more than managing his coworker egos.

No one is forcing him to be the head of Google's Brain division or to manage other people.

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

#169

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

ergocoder wrote: post #92

wilde wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.

This is an unfair take. If an employee is adversary toward the company, the trade off needs to be made no matter how much valuable the employee's work is. This is a non-issue tbh. She wants to leave. Company wants her to leave. They both agree to part way because the premises are fulfilled (i.e. company can't meet her requirements). If you want to get technical, I'd bet her employee's status is still in tact for 2 we…

Her manager said "effective today".[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364736457240577

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

#170

Post by sillysaurusx » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

usmannk wrote: post #150

sillysaurusx wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? S…

From what I read it sounds like Timnit cleared the general idea of the paper 2 months before. The paper itself seems to have been submitted for approval 1 day prior to the deadline. Another HN commenter says that submitting papers for approval "hours" before the deadline is common at Google.

Thank you. I’m not sure what to think. It seemed absurd to submit a paper for internal academic review one day prior to a major deadline. Yet today we’re hearing that it’s common (I can believe that; standard big company stuff) and that Google hasn’t been doing academic reviews at all until very recently / possibly this incident.

So it feels like, suddenly, the cornerstones of the arguments against her are vaporizing before our eyes. This could go badly for El Goog unless they stop making official statements on the matter.

Saying nothing would have been better than giving a convenient post for all the former Google employees to come out of the woodwork and say “That’s not true! Google never did academic reviews; they solely checked whether business IP was being exposed.”

It’s ironic that people are painting her as unprofessional in that context; I’d be frustrated too, if that’s really the situation.