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

391–400 of 607 posts

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

#391

Post by spdionis »

driverdan wrote: post #252
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 opportu…

Given the employee's general attitude, I find it easy to believe her manager was already not happy with her.

See her previous (potential) legal troubles with Google that she even acknowledges herself.

> I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (which is when they backed off--before that Google lawyers were prepared to throw us under the bus and our leaders were following as instructed) and the next day I get some random “impact award.”

https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

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

#392

Post by kortilla »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #358
nickff wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe in certain situations. But as an engineer on more than a couple of occasions I have pushed back on safety concerns and I was adamant that certain things be fixed for the company's reputation and for safety reasons. I did go over my manager's head because he wouldn't listen. Should I have been fired? Ultimately on one occasion I went up 4 layers of org chart to a VP who finally had the sense to listen because my…

If you didn’t threaten to quit then it’s not an ultimatum at all.

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

#393

Post by freeone3000 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #309
lokar wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm interested to know too. Because although I treat my ML work professionally, I haven't worked at a large AI lab. So I had no idea whether academic review was common inside DeepMind/OpenAI/Facebook AI, or whether researchers generally did their own thing -- i.e. that the researcher and their co-authors are the main judges of their own academic integrity. And in hindsight, it seems dumb to think it'd be any other wa…

From my time in a corporate research lab: The formal review process was conducted in parallel to initial review, with the goal to amend to prevent internal details from being widespread and amending for camera-ready. While people would freely review each other's papers, the goal was to increase initial acceptance rate. However, our lab notably, and perhaps exceptionally, mirrored the structure of an academic lab with corporate funding, even though all researchers were employed by the corporation.

Google's story would not fly where I worked, or where I work now.

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

#394

Post by ska »

kortilla wrote: post #390
ska wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with accepting anti-social behavior is that you encourage it. Not saying it's wrong or right, but couldn't she make the exactly symmetric argument?

No, they didn’t give her an ultimatum.

Is that the only form of anti-social behaviour? The description of the rejection process is similarly inflexible...

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

#396

Post by hrktb »

nostrademons wrote: post #317
neltnerb wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, or you could compromise with them and act like two adults? This isn't a zero sum game.

Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible? You can try or offer different alternatives, but if the other person is really at the ultimatum stage then you've both already lost.

Your point seems to be that not willing to compromise on a specific point means the employee is lost forever.

There’s tons of issues I wouldn’t compromise on, and better leave the company if I had to. Does that mean I’ll be fired the very second these subjects become remotely relevant and/if I make clear where my boundaries are ?

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

#397

Post by joshuamorton »

xiphias2 wrote: post #211
aphyr wrote: post #111

Dean writes: Our aim is to rival peer-reviewed journals in terms of the rigor and thoughtfulness in how we review research before publication. But Gebru writes that HR and her management chain delivered her feedback in a surprise meeting where she was not allowed to read the actual feedback, understand the process which generated it, or engage in a dialogue about it: Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback”…

I think the person who submitted feedback in privileged and confidential way made a great choice. I expect more people taking this route in the future actually, people are scared in the current political athmosphere. Look at what Jeff Dean is getting, even though he didn’t do anything bad. A manager in ethics shouldn’t ask Google to break the law by not providing confidientality that was requested.

> A manager in ethics shouldn’t ask Google to break the law by not providing confidientality that was requested.

It is not implied anywhere that the reviewers requested confidentiality. It is certainly not implied that Google would be violating the law to rescind that confidentiality (and, to be clear: they almost certainly would not be).

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

#398

Post by freeone3000 »

acituan wrote: post #369
freeone3000 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not "runaway activism" if you hire ethics researchers who find ethics problems.

Reasons for not citing research, especially recent research, range from lack of relevance (since even though environmental improvements could have been done, they were not done! So the actual impact wasnt lessened by them at all!); To simply not having known about it. The correct reviewer response to this would be an "accept with corrections" to "revise and resubmit"; retraction is overboard. Moreover, that's the role of a conference reviewer, not the employer. Once your employer starts interfering with what you can and can't publish, it's time to find a new affiliation indeed.

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

#399

Post by dragonwriter »

nostrademons wrote: post #317
neltnerb wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, or you could compromise with them and act like two adults? This isn't a zero sum game.

Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible? You can try or offer different alternatives, but if the other person is really at the ultimatum stage then you've both already lost.

> Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible?

Given that, at least in Timnit's narrative, the email included a request to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation, I don't think that the "ultimatum" characterization is uncontroversially accurate for the immediate case.

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

#400

Post by dragonwriter »

nickff wrote: post #315
neltnerb wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, or you could compromise with them and act like two adults? This isn't a zero sum game.

If someone wants to negotiate, they don't use an ultimatum.

If someone is using an ultimatum, they don't request an in-person discussion.

The narratives from the participants on the actual communication differ on key points relevant to evaluating whether it was really an ultimatum.

Post reply on HN