Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 307 posts

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#281

Post by gwd »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #250
gwd wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, were you somehow under the impression that the people of Sodom, Lot, and his daughters are being held up as models we should all be emulating? I always find it a bit strange that people despise simplistic "Sunday-school" answers to life, but then when they read the Bible and find messy situations like the one described above, they say, "What kind messed up story is this?" Real life is sometimes messed up. A bo…

If you read the old testament, it's brutal and often barbaric. It's written in bronze age and relfects life of the time. To argue that it reflects morals or 'messed up' situatuons we'd consider in civilised society is to be delusional.

So first of all, I think you're failing to acknowledge the brutal barbarism of our time. The Killing Fields? The Cultural Revolution? Stalin? The Tuskegee Syphilis Study? They told that story about Lot specifically because it was not the norm, but was the kind of thing that could actually happen.

Secondly, the claim was that Christianity -- that is, the teaching of Jesus -- has affected European ideas about morality. Lot is further away from Jesus than Jesus is from us.

I think the person you responded to has an inaccurate view of the history of slavery in Europe. But only someone who has never experienced a different culture could say that Christianity has had no effect on the moral ideas of the West.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#283

Post by daniel957 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #234
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.

I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. Whil…

I think (know for a fact) they were lies also. There was no huge list of demands.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#284

Post by daniel957 »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #261
joshuamorton wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. Whil…

I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts…

It’s disgusting that you literally have two Google employees providing you the truth and you just keep saying “No, you must be mistaken.” I have eyes, I can read. I have a brain that functions very well. A lie is a lie is a lie. And even if lawyers some how manage to button this up, it’s still a lie in the court of public opinion...

EDIT: Sorry, I understand that you don’t have as much information as us and you’re just going off based on tweets and stuff. But come on. It’s insulting to be lied to like that. I hope you can understand that feeling at least.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#285

Post by daniel957 »

ruslanbogan wrote: post #122
daniel957 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, why are you championing the writer of a flagged comment? Like I said, I didn’t flag the comment. So clearly other people agree with me and saw what I saw. Sorry if that’s hard for you to swallow.

More likely it was flagged by the aforementioned academics rather than people like you imagining dog whistles that aren't there. hth

Friendly ping. I’m just asking to explain what you originally said. I’m not asking you to explain my interpretation of what you said, obviously.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#286

Post by daniel957 »

ruslanbogan wrote: post #282
daniel957 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It would be impossible for me to explain things you've made up in your head

I’m just asking you to explain what you originally said. I’m not asking you to explain my interpretation of what you said, obviously.

What were you referring to or what did you mean when you mentioned if statements and racists?

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#287

Post by dofphoto »

cmiles74 wrote: post #157
_Nat_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public institutions tend to observe the same policies, even when there's no direct commercial interest. For example, if you join a Math department and start publishing papers that cast the department's research interests in a negative light, that's often a good way to get fired. I mean, seriously, go ask just about any professor of any topic at any university if their field is undervalued or overvalued. They'll almos…

My understanding is that the Google is pressuring it's employees (who are research scientists) to refrain from publishing papers that Google management believes casts a negative light on a Google product. It's not theoretical, researchers are quoted in the article and papers have been altered. I find it difficult to come up with an analogy from a public institution. What is the product the math department would be pr…

> I find it difficult to come up with an analogy from a public institution. What is the product the math department would be pressuring it's members to protect?

couldn't the exact thing that happened at Google happened at a university? For example one researcher could publish a paper criticizing the methods that other researchers in the department have developed because of their carbon impact.

I think it's fair to say that there are internal pressures not to do that - - such a professor would have a hard time thriving in the department if they are attacking the methods of their colleagues.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#288

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gwd wrote: post #281
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the old testament, it's brutal and often barbaric. It's written in bronze age and relfects life of the time. To argue that it reflects morals or 'messed up' situatuons we'd consider in civilised society is to be delusional.

So first of all, I think you're failing to acknowledge the brutal barbarism of our time. The Killing Fields? The Cultural Revolution? Stalin? The Tuskegee Syphilis Study? They told that story about Lot specifically because it was not the norm, but was the kind of thing that could actually happen. Secondly, the claim was that Christianity -- that is, the teaching of Jesus -- has affected European ideas about morality.…

That is my whole argument - the times were barbaric, both the old testament and to some degree the new testament largely capture that, so you should not be going round claiming they brought morality to the world / west. I am nor arguing it had to effect, I am arguing it's not like we'd all be a moral vacuum without it.

I am very surprised you are claiming the old testament is somehow not part of Christianity or should now be considered- am I misunderstanding you? I am not a religious scholar, but that's not a view my local priest would support.

Also I fail to see how bringing up Stalin is relevant, you can't even find a communist these days that thinks he was morally upright.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#289

Post by koheripbal »

curiousllama wrote: post #71
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #46

I deal with this on a regular basis in the research world, there is what is a really toxic and dangerous bias towards constructing the positive, i.e., making things seem, appear, and even fabricate outcomes that will be affirming of desired outcomes or other group biases. It is not research, let alone science when you are striking a positive tone, it’s fraud.

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.

Remember, it's all about the "optics".

This isn't relegated to science or management - we're seeing it all across society these days. Nuance is dead. If the message cannot be delivered in a 120 character tweet, and cannot self-gratify 50 million teenage viewers with only a superficial understanding of the topic, then it shouldn't be a public position at all. Of course, I'm slightly exaggerating.

But the consequence is very real - organizations, whether corporate or scientific, whether public or private have had to drop an iron curtain around their honest nuanced internal strategies in order to avoid the attention of the hyperbolic and outrage-fueled social media world.

Re: Google told its scientists to ‘strike a positive tone’ in AI research

#290

Post by chii »

curiousllama wrote: post #71
frankfrankfrank wrote: post #46

I deal with this on a regular basis in the research world, there is what is a really toxic and dangerous bias towards constructing the positive, i.e., making things seem, appear, and even fabricate outcomes that will be affirming of desired outcomes or other group biases. It is not research, let alone science when you are striking a positive tone, it’s fraud.

This is a really important point. Executive-land is all about image and framing, so I can totally see how execs think it's not a big deal to "just make the case" or frame things less negatively. But while that's ok in a slide deck, it's _not_ ok in a research paper. Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue. It's tough to see this play out real time.

> Researchers aren't (shouldn't be) accountable to business outcomes, but rather the truth of what they argue.

if a business funds research, they expect the funding to have a positive ROI. Therefore, the business will pressure research towards this, and thus, will inevitably make the research accountable for an outcome.

This is why fundamental research should be publicly funded, and publicly available.

Post reply on HN