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

241–250 of 607 posts

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

#241

Post by ghaff »

tome wrote: post #195
nebulous1 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called. Then you aren't bluffing.

How do you figure that? If I hold 27 off suit then I still have to be prepared to show my hand if you call me. Doesn't mean my all-in raise wasn't bluffing.

But presumably you understand that your opponent may call you. The relevant MW definition is "a false threat or claim intended to deter or deceive someone." So in this context, it's a claim you won't really leave if you don't get your way. But the other party may decide to get rid of you anyway based on the bluff. (Thinking about it, it's probably reasonable to call it a bluff but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences if the other party calls you on it.)

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

#242

Post by jariel »

theobeers wrote: post #33
gcr wrote: post #2

Maybe different teams are different, but on my previous team within Google AI, we thought the goal of google's pubapproval process was to ensure that internal company IP (eg. details about datasets, details about google compute infra) does not leak to the public, and maybe to shield Google from liability. Nothing more. In all of my time at Google AI, I never heard of pubapproval being used for peer review or to criti…

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.

"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."

Representing a more truthful reality is not 'softening'.

It's only 'softening' for those who have an already accepted, extremist view, and for whom any evidence to the contrary doesn't help their arguments.

While initially sympathetic to the author - the more I read - the more I have completely the opposite view.

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

#243

Post by deeeeplearning »

A lot of people mistakenly think Google is part of their family and has incentives other than making profit and avoiding bad PR. It's not really a surprise they took the first opportunity they could to fire someone who has in the past threatened them with Lawsuits... Don't be evil Google died a long time ago, there's nothing to see here, just business as usual.

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

#244

Post by lokar »

whimsicalism wrote: post #221
sillysaurusx wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It seemed absurd to submit a paper for internal academic review one day prior to a major deadline I think that there isn't internal academic review of the sort implied by Jeff at Google. Timnit seems pretty clearly in the right here. As an AI researcher at a competitor, this impacts my desire to join Google in the future. I imagine these sort of PR disasters hurt their standing in the academic labor market.

> I think that there isn't internal academic review of the sort implied by Jeff at Google.

Why do you think that?

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

#245

Post by trhway »

albatruss wrote: post #190
trhway wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You have identified a similarity between two situations, but it is not a similarity that matters. The distinction that matters is one of normativity, and on that measure there is clearly no equivalence to be drawn here.

every time it is the same - somebody got the power to enforce the prevalent ideology of the time and place, they happily do it under the premise that it is the most right and good ideology, and because of being such visibly pious followers and strict enforcers these self-declared occupants of high moral ground start to feel and behave themselves as more entitled and better than others. They highjack the cause and frame any disagreement with or critique toward them as a heretical attack on the cause. The main point here is that once something becomes an ideology the "right", "good", etc. gradually lose any meaning in that context, and the only thing which really continues to matter and grows more and more is the enforcement of the ideology.

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

#246

Post by ThomPete »

whimsicalism wrote: post #193
siliconmountain wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the academic journal peer review process generally an anonymous feedback mechanism? Why does this need to be different?

> academic journal peer review process Fro my understanding, this paper had already passed peer review and been accepted. Google management then decided to block the publication using the IP review process.

it got approved without the review from what i understand

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

#247

Post by Barrin92 »

sbarre wrote: post #122
bmitc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)..

>We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all))

Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth

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

#248

Post by wpietri »

ergocoder wrote: post #188
pseudalopex wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her manager said "effective today".[1] [1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364736457240577

I don't know what that means. It could mean her employment status is off today. Or it could mean she can't access any corp material but her status is on. It's fairly standard to let the employee leave the building immediately but still on payroll for 2 more weeks. Again, I think it's a non-issue. Both wants to part way. Either party can singlehandedly make that date earlier. It seems one side brings up this point bec…

No, she did not want to part ways. If she did, she would have quit. Instead, she said she needed certain things to keep working there. That pretty obviously indicates a desire to keep working.

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

#249

Post by rlt »

I think we’re starting to see companies discover the limits of how far they’re willing to let employees push their “woke” agenda using the company’s name.

It seems disparaging your own company while ignoring research that counters yours is Google’s limit, but we’ll have to wait to see the research paper if it leaks.

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

#250

Post by htrp »

skissane wrote: post #73
Imnimo wrote: post #21

This reads to me like Google felt that the paper painted some of their other technologies in a poor light, and wanted to insert language that made them look better. The way he describes their objections, 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. Not the sort of thing that a conference reviewer or an internal…

> 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…

> 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 cites to X,Y,Z". And then, if Gebru and her coauthors were willing to add those cites, that would resolve it.

Unless corporate tells you to kill the paper and you need something that resembles legal cover.

Post reply on HN