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

41–50 of 607 posts

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

#41

Post by bnj »

throawaydmg wrote: post #24

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of…

Isn’t it pretty normal to ask to “face your accuser” and engage with feedback specifically, instead of an anonymous and unassailable red stamp?

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

#42

Post by noitpmeder »

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 don't see what else they should have done? This researcher made some ultimatum. As part of it, she said if Google refused, she would set a date to leave the company. Google obviously did not concede to her demand, and obviously didn't think it beneficial to let her be a thorn any longer, so took her up on her offer.

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

#43

Post by kevinskii »

foota wrote: post #31
throawaydmg wrote: post #24

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of…

I can imagine she felt helpless when her work was being blocked. Imagine you were going to start a project and was told someone in your org was against it and that you couldn't do it as a result.

That pretty much sums up every employee/employer relationship, and it isn't a bad thing.

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

#44

Post by danpalmer »

ethanp61 wrote: post #26
thisgoodlife wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one link says she resigned. The other one says she was fired. Which one is it then?

She made demands and gave a resignation date if those demands were not met. Google said that they could not meet those demands and accepted her resignation but because of her conduct (emailing hundreds of Googlers), the resignation date was made immediate.

I believe on currently available information she did not give a date, but said she wanted to "discuss her exit timeline".

Also it's likely that her contract allows Google to provide her pay in lieu of her working out the end of her contract, so they are probably able in general to move dates like this (not commenting on the other aspects of this situation though).

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

#45

Post by hackcasual »

saagarjha wrote: post #37
choppaface wrote: post #30

It's frankly unprofessional for Jeff Dean to post only his email in this document without providing more context. The news media has in cases provided balanced coverage that included the email from Timnit that prompted Google's action: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... This post from Jeff Dean simply underscores that he has failed to balance the need for diplomacy with the research thesi…

I mean, this is obviously a place where Jeff Dean is providing the voice of Google on the topic. Why would they provide balanced context?

A large part of the criticism directed towards google is that they weren't particularly transparent in their handling of this situation. This is making that look worse.

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

#46

Post by asfadfdsa »

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 plan to resign if a condition isn't met, then what do you expect them to say if they don't plan to fulfill that condition? It sounds like she was expecting them to say "Hey, well we don't want to meet your demands, but sure, we're happy to have a disgruntled employee around here, so feel free to stick around, or you could just quit on your own timeline, no sweat".

I suspect that many people would be fired on the spot for threatening to resign, so don't threaten it if you aren't okay with that consequence.

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

#47

Post by that_guy_iain »

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…

> 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.

I wouldn't say this has blown up in their face. But to be honest, I've not seen that much drama about it than one post. Have I been missing something?

This seems a very solid move from Google. Someone tried to bully their way into getting information from Google they shouldn't give out. If you go to HR in confidence that confidence should be upheld. The fact someone had to go to HR for a peer review and the fact it was upheld states something.

If someone says "Do X or I'll quit" when you're not going to do X, it is a resigination and seems quite standard that they don't want such an active detractor within their company ranks.

I believe she basically sent an email to fellow employees basically telling them to stop working. That alone is a firable. That is completely nuts and unacceptable work place behaviour. The fact Google didn't fire her for that should speak volumes.

To me, from a HR point of view, this is completely the right move to make.

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

#48

Post by throawaydmg »

foota wrote: post #31
throawaydmg wrote: post #24

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of…

I can imagine she felt helpless when her work was being blocked. Imagine you were going to start a project and was told someone in your org was against it and that you couldn't do it as a result.

Maybe take a step back, consider the possibility that you may be wrong, and if you still think you are right, then attack their ideas and arguments, instead of acting entitled and demanding to know who said this or that.

Like PG wrote, the worst thing you can say about an idea is that it is wrong, you don't need to resort to personal attacks or x-isms.

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

#49

Post by kwillets »

gcr wrote: post #2

Maybe different teams are different, but on my previous team within Google AI, we thought the goal of google's pubapproval process was to ensure that internal company IP (eg. details about datasets, details about google compute infra) does not leak to the public, and maybe to shield Google from liability. Nothing more. In all of my time at Google AI, I never heard of pubapproval being used for peer review or to criti…

That confused me as well -- where I work we have a legal dept. approval for IP issues, and that's it. Academic review doesn't make sense in that context or time frame.

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

#50

Post by wilde »

nova22033 wrote: post #19

Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resig…

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.
Post reply on HN