About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

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…

Post by visarga » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

rajangdavis wrote: post #39

Had Gebru not raised an ultimatum, what would have been the consequence of the paper not passing internal review be? It sounds like she submitted the paper anyway, would there have been consequences to those actions?

Post by agentdrtran » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

samizdis wrote: post #265

This topic, over the past couple of days, seems to me to have become fraught, polarised and argued to distraction and faction. It's not a stretch to say that the world has a problem with discrimination, or that big personalities can rock the boat when they go against the grain. Or that corporates have interests to defend. I'd like in this case, though - not to say that all the other factors aren't worthy of examinati…

Post by ghaff » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:26 PM UTC

tome wrote: post #258

ghaff wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by htrp » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:27 PM UTC

iab wrote: post #12

kaymanb wrote: post #3

> Our aim is to rival peer-reviewed journals in terms of the rigor and thoughtfulness in how we review research before publication. I can see how this might be frustrating for academics working within Google. The field already has systems in place for peer-review. While I admire the idea of Google holding their research to a certain standard, it also provides a mechanism for dismissing research that paints Google (th…

I think this is the crux, in that google is not academia; so naturally a band-gap would arise if your expectations were that it should behave like an academic institution. From their perspective, what requirement is there to publish work that is not well aligned with their goals (optics, financial, etc)?