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

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

#251

Post by visarga » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #160

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…

I think that Google viewed her as a ticking time bomb, so they might as well detonate it early to try to contain explosion. She had threatened to sue Google in the past and was most likely gathering even more ammunition for her lawyers. Edit: I'm not sure what this tweet is referencing, but it's an indicator of her attitude towards her superiors, I can see why they would want to let go of her. https://twitter.com/tim…

You might be on to something. The paper doesn't seem too controversial or especially amazing, the objections seem minor (some citations and updates), maybe it's just a pretext. Could be about a lawsuit.

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

#252

Post by driverdan » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

asfadfdsa wrote: post #46

There are a lot of people commenting that she didn't actually resign. I agree, but it sounds like the conversation went like this: employee: I'm not happy about x, y and z. If you don't do those, I'm going to quit. manager: well we are not going to do those, so thank you for your time. We accept your resignation and would like it to start immediately (i.e. you're fired). If you are gonna tell your manager that you pl…

As a manager I would only do this if I really wanted to fire the person already. For employees I care about I would give them an out.

Part of being a good manager is understanding your employees and helping them succeed. If someone makes a statement like this in the heat of frustration it doesn't necessarily mean they will actually quit. If they're a valuable member of the team you should present them with an opportunity to save face and remain.

To me this seems like taking an opportunity to fire someone they already wanted to get rid of. Either that or a bad manager who wanted to flex their power as a threat to the rest of the team.

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

#253

Post by ryanobjc » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

kneel wrote: post #163

mstg wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The funny thing is she isn’t going to be harmed by this. In fact if she felt like she needed a different job this is one way to do it. I personally would hate the stress, but some people like it.

One thing I rarely see is people talking about her email where she said “give me a and b or else I’ll leave” - paraphrasing slightly. This isn’t in dispute, she readily admits this.

What ... is an employer supposed to do with this? Also she’s a manager, so there are extra lame legal crap. It feels like they could have not taken her bait - which sounds like hyperbole to me - but I guess they did, and do they have to?

I can’t say about any of the review things, if she is being over reviewed or not, could be. Demanding to know everyone who looked at her work so she could... wage a Twitter war of destruction, well I could understand not wanting to do that. I mean if I was asked to review her paper, I would decline. Who would get into that?

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

#254

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #248

ergocoder wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Instead, she said she needed certain things to keep working there.

And, from what I understand, that she wanted to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation (which she was on at the time.)

EDIT: I point this out because I think that this potentially recasts the whole communication from an non-negotiable ultimatum to something more like a fair warning to avoid blindsiding anyone going into an in-person discussion in which negotiation is implicitly anticipated.

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

#255

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #174

pseudalopex wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just called the firing a firing.

If I storm into my manager's office and demand a set of conditions, or else I resign on some date, and my manager says "Well, fine, we accept your resignation, but it's effective immediately" I don't really have a problem with my manager calling it a resignation.

Firing someone who's given notice is still firing them.

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

#256

Post by jariel » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #109

orsenthil wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, put more simply, they pushed out someone in their Ethical AI department because they did not soften critiques against AI enough. I didn't read that. I read the person _demanded_ who said a particular critical feedback, or questioned the approaches instead of addressing them. The person gave the ultimatum to resign if details were not shared.

If your work is suddenly and unexpected roadblocked at the last second by internal review, the only way to make changes that prevent that from happening in the future is to clearly understand the situations and criticisms that led to the roadblock. This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important. Anonymous feedback blowing up a project at the final moments is sure to frustrate anybody. If what she ha…

"and unexpected roadblocked at the last second "

This is a essentially false. The author submitted the paper the day before publishing, given there at least was some form of standard review - the actions by Google could not be construed as 'roadblock'.

There is no 'roadblocking' and the review was certainly not 'unexpected.

The constant misrepresentation of the facts in this situation is harmful for those ostensibly wanting to do good.

"This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important."

Since there was no roadblock - this answer makes no sense.

The answer more likely that the researcher wanted a named list of what she perceived to be as her personal enemies.

"Failing to cite some recent research is rarely grounds for rejection."

There doesn't seem to be any reasonable cause for major concern in this whole issue - it seems the company raised some points and she could have managed them reasonably in professional terms.

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

#257

Post by joshuamorton » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

angry_octet wrote: post #218

After reading Jeff Dean's response, I can only come to the conclusion that Timnit Gebru acted like a primadonna. It is completely normal to have to obtain prepublication signoff on material before it is submitted to a conference (and manager signoff even before abstract submission). Given the breadth of experience at Google, it seems strange not to avail yourself of this. Demanding to know the identity of reviewers i…

> It is completely normal to have to obtain prepublication signoff on material before it is submitted to a conference (and manager signoff even before abstract submission)

To be clear, both of these had been received for the paper in question.

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

#258

Post by tome » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #241

tome wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conse…

I suppose there is an ambiguity regarding whether the "bluff" was that she wasn't actually prepared to leave or whether it was that she actually was.

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

#259

Post by dmix » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #145

that_guy_iain wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is little more than gossip unless you can point to something specific that people can judge for themselves. Saying “she basically did X” is a clever way to influence how people feel about her. It's gossip as in I haven't seen anyone confirm the validtiy of https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... but I've also not seen anyone deny it. In fact, it seems everyone is confirming it unoffical…

That is totally not the same thing as telling your fellow employees to stop working. I like to think I’m a pretty reasonable fellow, but it’s hard to see that point of view. I felt similarly to you yesterday. Now I’m not so sure. It sounds like she was criticizing company process and was frustrated not being able to have any impact on what she perceived were real problems to the integrity of the process. I can empath…

Even Jeff Dean had to include:

> I also feel badly that hundreds of you received an email just this week from Timnit telling you to stop work on critical DEI programs. Please don’t.

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

#260

Post by htrp » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:19 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.

Since most people are frantically working on their papers until day of/ hour before ML conference submission deadlines, the "final" version of the paper may very well have been submitted the day before the deadline.

Someone in the ML community posted the abstract and provided feedback, which seems to indicate that this followed the typical review cycles for conference papers.