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

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

#361

Post by edgefield0 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #224

UncleMeat wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a manager, if someone gives an ultimatum, you basically have to fire them. There's no real option; Ben Horowitz covered it somewhere, but the bottom line is that if you yield, you've given up all control.

Sorry, I strenuously disagree. I'm also a manager and think setting boundaries is essential, up, down, and sideways.

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

#362

Post by fatbird » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #162

fatbird wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but it's also the norm that peer reviewer's feedback is provided to allow the author the address issues. In Timnit's account, she received neither identities nor the feedback itself.

This is incorrect, she did receive the feedback, then demanded the source to be deanonimized.

A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week...

And you are told after a while, that your manager can read you a privileged and confidential document and you’re not supposed to even know who contributed to this document, who wrote this feedback, what process was followed or anything. You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored.

According to her account, she was not given the feedback when she was told that the paper had to be retracted. After discussion, she was told her manager would read her the feedback without telling her who wrote it or what process was followed.

This is different than a normal peer review process that, anonymous or not, aims to provide feedback to the author so they can incorporate it.

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

#363

Post by tempest_ » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #335

cmsj wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand some of the reasons why some managers think that way, but you can't have such simplistic rules. An ultimatum like this is an opportunity for a responsible manager to talk and rethink, but it seems like Google jumped at the opportunity to double-down on their mistake and then send out cowardly emails claiming the employee had actually resigned. If I were to apply a simplistic rule here, I would actually i…

The problem with accepting anti-social behavior is that you encourage it. This individual or another will use the same strategy against you in the future, and it will create antagonism and toxicity. No, an ultimatum is a choice between two options; she offered Google a choice, and they selected. Expecting them to try to carve out a 'third way' is just unrealistic. I agree that you can frame this many ways; she could…

Ah the old I don't want to do my job and accept that there "was nothing I could do" which is middle management bullshit.

It is fine if you think that, but accept that you are the weak one here. If you want to err on the side of keeping your job it's fine, but don't pretend you didn't make a trade off.

You do not have to accept anti social behavior but a good manager would have handled this and it would never have reached this point, public or otherwise. This whole episode is failure of management top to bottom.

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

#364

Post by defen » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

tfehring wrote: post #305

btown wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be even more clear - they pushed out someone in their Ethical AI department because she wanted to have human conversations to determine the basis for being asked to soften critiques. It's one thing for reviewers, even anonymous reviewers, to reject a paper on its merits; it's another, in Timnit's own words [0], to be told "'it has been decided'" through "a privileged and confidential document to HR" despite cle…

Also from Gebru's memo ([0] in the parent comment): > And you are told after a while, that your manager can read you a privileged and confidential document Emphasis mine. Showing your employee that you don't even trust her with a written copy of the rejection of her paper is not a great way to engender a good working relationship. Note that this pretty clearly seems to have happened before Gebru sent the email that D…

Really makes one wonder if this document is one that Google does not want to come out in discovery, ever, and that it's in some system with a relatively short TTL before it gets deleted, because policy.

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

#365

Post by saagarjha » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #86

wilde wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.

"Do X or I'll quit" is a childish way to negotiate, its akin to a child throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way. It's extremely unprofessional and not something a team player would do. I think its clear why they took her up on her offer.

Is "do X or we'll fire you" childish? Because that's pretty much how most employment works…

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

#366

Post by fatbird » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:43 PM UTC

skissane wrote: post #121

fatbird wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Timnit's account, she said she asked for specific feedback so it could be addressed and the paper published; this was denied to her and is part of her complaint over which she resigned.

One thing I don't understand about this situation is which of the following was she denied: (1) the substance of the feedback and actionable specifics (e.g. "you didn't cite X") (2) the actual text of the feedback (if it was given in written form) If she was denied (1), I agree that is grossly unfair. If she was denied (2) but granted (1), I don't think that is so unreasonable. If feedback is anonymous, sharing its e…

It sounds like, after pressing the point, she was allowed to have her manager read the feedback to her, without sharing the author or process by which feedback was solicited. So, not provided in written form, but the substance would be received.

However, she was also told that the paper was to be retracted and that she wouldn't be allowed to address the feedback and keep the paper published. So the form in which the feedback was provided was immaterial.

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

#367

Post by kps » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:44 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…

> at the last second

It was only ‘at the last second’ because Gebru chose not to follow the normal procedure.

If the paper genuinely can't be ready until one day before the external deadline, the right thing to do is engage with the reviewers in advance, explain the problem, and provide them with drafts and work in progress, so that they can complete their work a few hours after yours.

What Gebru did is the equivalent of bypassing code review and pushing to prod on Friday afternoon.

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

#368

Post by angst_ridden » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #345

angst_ridden wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a manager, it's your job not to push people to a corner where they need to make an ultimatim. If your company is ethical, you should be able to navigate this.

Well, you're assuming she was pushed in 'to a corner where they need to make an ultimatim [sic]'. All I know is that she used an ultimatum to challenge/corner her manager, and he decided to discontinue their working relationship.

She certainly felt that she was pushed into a corner where she had to make an ultimatim. As a manager, it's my job to make sure my people don't get into situations where they feel that threatened.

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

#369

Post by acituan » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #281

that_guy_iain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I get the impression that she wrote a hit piece on Google and published with Google's name. For me, it's correct they demand a retraction. It's simply unprofessional to critque your company for something while not mentioning the work they'…

Company with unethical practices hires ethics researcher Ethics researcher publishes piece critical of company's activities Company is shocked as to how this could happen.

Ethics researcher omits relevant research in paper to smuggle in a particular agenda.

Company calls it out.

Researcher realizes the limits of her narrative setting powers.

Non-vocal majority is happy to see runaway activism being curbed in corporate settings. Slow march through institutions is slowed down for a day.

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

#370

Post by xapata » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #359

that_guy_iain wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I get the impression that she wrote a hit piece on Google and published with Google's name. For me, it's correct they demand a retraction. It's simply unprofessional to critque your company for something while not mentioning the work they'…

> It's simply unprofessional to critque your company for something while not mentioning the work they're doing to combat that. It would seem deeply problematic for an AI ethics researcher to have the expectation that when they critique their own employer, they should mention all their work to ameliorate bias or ethics problems, but to not have a similar expectation when they're critiquing other companies. Is the poin…

That's not the assertion here. A good researcher should be aware of the current state of the field, and thus mention current efforts to solve a problem when discussing that problem. Regardless of who's doing the work.