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

231–238 of 238 posts

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#231

Post by 21723 »

21723 wrote: post #45
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…

It sounds like you're alleging that Timnit Gebru (whom I've never met, but who seems like a fine person from what I have read) is "toxic" and that working with her would be "a nightmare" to you. Am I correct in inferring this?

This'll probably be read by no one, but I want to correct the record... I was trying to set up rhetoric for the argument that TG is not "toxic", because from what I've read, she is not. The downvotes suggest that I was interpreted otherwise, and I'm sorry for this.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#232

Post by mcguire »

sjg007 wrote: post #182
mcguire wrote: post #169

" Google fired machine learning scientist Satrajit Chatterjee in March, soon after it refused to publish a paper Chatterjee and others wrote challenging earlier findings that computers could design some chip components more effectively than humans. The scientist was reportedly allowed to collaborate on a paper disputing those claims after he and fellow authors expressed reservations, but was dismissed after a resolut…

It is a strange hill to decide to die on. Even if you are the expert in the area, AI is weird and changing the world. Most Nature papers have something wrong with them. I don't see any reason that reinforcement learning cannot learn the best layouts or what not. I don't know the space though enough to say more than that. The NYTimes article alleges that he waged a misinformation campaign against two researchers. So t…

They can fire him for whatever reason they like, but preventing the publication of a paper should not be a corporate policy decision. The only question they should ask is if it reveals trade secrets, which I assume it wouldn't because it was a response to another paper from Google. The whole scientific process thing is the part intended to decide if it's meaningful or not.

That AI is weird and changing the world is why the science shouldn't be held up on the question of whether it embarrasses the company.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#233

Post by boppo1 »

BeetleB wrote: post #225
boppo1 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>literally every textbook on negotiations Aside: can you recommend the best ones? Getting to Yes is all I've read, but it seems a little 'fluffy'. I want something more rigorous, perhaps with game theory and models.

> I want something more rigorous, perhaps with game theory and models. I haven't read any of those. The thing is, those are great for longer term negotiations, but not for short term day to day ones - you don't have the luxury of evaluating things from a game theory/model perspective. Even Getting To Yes is a bit poor in that regard.

So which ones/resources do you like for day-to-day negotiations?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#234

Post by heavyset_go »

boppo1 wrote: post #224
throwawaygh wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if you've had an in-person conversation with someone who would identify as being a part of the AGI safety community. Yes. Many. > I've talked with several people and their arguments are a lot more sophisticated than an intuition that ML models would have human motivations. I don't have to think much about refuting this. Sure, okay, sophistication. Or not. Whatever. The sophistication is still mostly philos…

>Even in the limit, where ML sysetems do some non-trivial set of human-like tasks (which we aren't even remotely close to yet, btw) I'm a layman in AI/ML and I've seen this stated a lot by people actually programming ML stuff (as opposed to "working in the space" as a blogger/manager/marketer etc.) How can I concretely convey this concept to friends & family panicing about AI from crap they read in NYT/Economist/WSJ…

> How can I concretely convey this concept to friends & family panicing about AI from crap they read in NYT/Economist/WSJ etc.?

What are the arguments brought forth by NYT/etc concerning AI? I haven't really looked, but I haven't seen anything from the NYT or mainstream news about the perils of general AI.

I have seen articles about the risk that AI could put people out of jobs, though, and about potential bias and inaccuracies, too.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#235

Post by blairdon »

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…

https://twitter.com/jacobsteinhardt/status/15215993379432898...

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#236

Post by prepend »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #166
prepend wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the pay is pretty good considering $100k+ to do actual science. I think the issue is these are non-scientist roles at Google and whatnot that pay more because they are paying scientists to not be scientists. It’s like the highest pay for a geologist is in government unless you want to stop doing science and work for oil.

It takes 5-7 years to get your PhD, 3-5 years as a postdoc, then starting pay is usually 85-90, but set to grow fairly quickly but to out at 145+benefits. That extra decade in "training" is a lot of missed economic opportunity

Yes, certainly. But if you just want economic opportunity then science isn’t for you. Start driving trucks at 18 and you’ll have more money with all those extra years of income.

But $100k+ is decent compensation (And way above the median) to be able to work in one’s area of interest. I think being able to do science while still having a good salary is a big positive in life.

But yes, there are many other ways to make more money.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#237

Post by registeredcorn »

hintymad wrote: post #147
registeredcorn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> weaponizes political correctness I'm sorry to be nitpick-y. I understand what you are saying, but to be clear: Political correctness is a weapon. The idea is that there is a correct answer (fact), and a separate, unrelated politically advantageous answer (group approval). Following the tactic of political correctness, to any degree, is using the concept for personal gain. There is no way to be political correct wit…

I'm not sure PC itself a weapon, but I get your point. PC is so ingrained in American culture that we implicitly accept that certain degree of PC is needed.

Fair enough. My perspective is that PC is a destructive act to culture, whether it be American, European, Spanish, etc. I can hardly expect everyone to agree with me on that point.

I suppose my concern with that perspective would be something close to, "Can you extrapolate the difference between common courtesy and political correctness?" I don't know if that sounds insulting somehow - it's not meant to be, but sometimes when I ask those sorts of questions, it badly received.

Anyway, to my mind, there is a difference between a need for politeness & civil discourse, and a perspective which intends to enforce those ideals through destructive language and cultural upheaval.

One is self-imposed, the other an imposition.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#238

Post by [deleted] »

robonerd wrote: post #146
registeredcorn wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> weaponizes political correctness I'm sorry to be nitpick-y. I understand what you are saying, but to be clear: Political correctness is a weapon. The idea is that there is a correct answer (fact), and a separate, unrelated politically advantageous answer (group approval). Following the tactic of political correctness, to any degree, is using the concept for personal gain. There is no way to be political correct wit…

Political correctness means adherence to a political ideology. Whether something is politically correct or politically incorrect is relative to the political ideology in question. Subjective value statements like "X deserves more funding than Y" , which don't have objective answers, may be considered politically correct or incorrect depending on the ideological context being considered.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN