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

511–520 of 607 posts

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

#511

Post by LordFast »

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.

Hey, just so you know, regardless of whether things work this way under /today's environment/ and/or whoever has said it as some "management wisdom", the words you have typed here represent some blatant power-tripping BS to anyone with half a brain.

I hope you've said it with the intention to make a point about how dysfunctional certain managers can become, rather than illustrating a belief. If you can't lead other human beings without having control over them, then please hang up your leadership hat and go do something else for a living.

-Another manager.

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

#512

Post by jariel »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #490
jariel wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"According to nearly everyone else's, this process was unusual in that it even involved reviewing for content and not just IP" This is ethics for Google's AI+Search which is currently undergoing global scrutiny, particularly by Congress and specific politicians who are considering anti-trust measures against Google - and who believe that 'their political party is being treated unfairly'. It's existential concern for…

> when really their starting point is 'silence' and they really don't have to do anything at all. They can't have their cake and eat it too; if they want hire people to do AI ethics research, and then censor them for doing their job, then they should get called out for ethics-washing, which is exactly what's happening. I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent.

"and then censor them for doing their job"

This is false.

The requirement for a fairly light review process, and asking for more, truthful, factual and contextualizing information to be disclosed is not censorship.

Nobody is suppressing research, or even asking that specific opinions or results be changed.

The commenter above used the term 'draconian' to refer to this process, which is just superlatively false.

"I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent."

How is this power not benevolent exactly?

What's 'hard to understand' is the petulance and irreverence people have for the offices and responsibilities they hold, and the lack of professionalism in their conduct.

This should have been an easy issue to address by any mature researcher who cared about working with others to achieve positive outcomes - instead of trying to force their opinion on an organization, or engender public support for their career.

There are plenty of reasonable voices at the table for 'Ethics in AI' nobody has a magic wand in this equation.

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

#513

Post by chipsa »

nickff wrote: post #460
glangdale wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is rubbish. At Intel we called it "badge on the table". It's a statement of complete commitment (and I've been the beneficiary of someone going 'badge on the table' at least once, under circumstances I can't disclose). It doesn't imply that if a manager or VP or CEO concedes the point at issue once, then the person can now go around "putting their badge on the table" and getting their own way over and over again…

Interesting, do people who put their 'badge on the table' actually quit when they lose, or is it just a saying that's used to show emphasis?

If they don’t quit, the next time they try it, it won't be believed.

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

#514

Post by aylmao »

treis wrote: post #298
wpietri wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely. "If we don't fix this I don't think I can continue working here" is not a resignation, it's a negotiating position.

Sure, but sending out an e-mail accusing your colleagues of racism, exhorting them to stop working, and talking about potential lawsuits isn't. There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that.

> exhorting them to stop working

Perhaps it's just me as a URM, but her email resonated with me, especially this part. I see this position of calling what she did "exhorting them to stop working" often, but this isn't really what she did.

I too care about DEI, but after putting lots of time and effort into it I saw how futile the effort was in my organization because there was real buy-in from higher ups. I was putting a lot of unrewarded volunteer work helping with "inclusivity" and talking about the problems/solutions, but that was all it was in the end for the people we needed action from; "talk". I did decide eventually to dial it back and stick to my actual paid job of programming, and although I didn't send an email to other people telling them their effort was being wasted, if someone came and asked me, I'd tell them to not bother. There's other places, usually further removed from the the company and easily PR-able channels, where the effort is better spent.

In any case, I hope you realize your comment is full of hyperbole and the people who think she isn't in the wrong, myself included, aren't being unreasonable. We're smart people too.

> There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that

I agree. None of this comes as a surprise and I'm sure she expected it too; that doesn't mean Google is in the moral high ground.

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

#515

Post by dvtrn »

free_rms wrote: post #504
dvtrn wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay, well since the comment I initially replied to has been edited entirely post hoc to represent an entirely different tenor than what you originally replied with, I guess I need to edit mine as well: No, I'm not doing that right now, I am trying to understand your framing of CRT and where your issues lie with it. It would seem those issues lie with how certain people argue CRT, not CRT itself. Thank you for clarif…

I guess my beef is, how come everything is game for criticism EXCEPT the critical theorists? Why can't we analyze their power incentives as well?

What stands in your way other than being faced with possible objections to, and responses in kind to whatever your critiques may be? Objections and responses that-I would boldly say-are not stopping you from making said critiques, or rather, they hold no enforceable power that precludes you or anyone from making rebuttals of your own.

They are just that, objections and responses. Which you are free to entertain or not, attempt to unpack and understand or not, respond to with better critiques, objections, observations and rebuttals of your own...or not. But you're not being prevented from making them by anyone or anything short of I suppose committing some sort of crime in order to make that point (that's just an extreme example to stretch the metaphor).

This is the form and function of debate, it is a crucible that boils away impurities of all manner and dialect (for anyone who may be thinking they've heard this one before, yes, I absolutely stole this from an episode of Star Trek).

If you feel you are being stopped from doing any of this, might I ask why and how you have been completely prevented and kept from expressing yourself?

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

#516

Post by KittenInABox »

jariel wrote: post #505
jolux wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is not a public university, you don't get perfectly tenured academic freedom, if Google wants to put a reasonable subnote in there - and take 2 weeks to do it, it's perfectly fine. They may be allowed to, but they're fools if they think world-class academics are going to work for them under draconian publishing standards that are not even consistently specified. I'm sure Gebru could get a tenured position at a…

"but they're fools if they think world-class academics are going to work for them under draconian publishing standards" ? I suggest it might be 'foolish' to imply that 'a 2 week quick review with minor additions' are anything remotely 'draconian'. Just the opposite -- this is a siren call to great researchers who want to be highly paid and work on great and novel things, full well knowing Google has a very light revi…

I think that demanding retraction to a paper with no reason, and then only providing a verbal reason (aka the researcher cannot have the notes with them when making revisions), refusing to explain the process in which feedback was solicited, and then demanding retraction (NOT a revise and resubmit)...

yeah that's super draconian.

ESPECIALLY if other people in your department are claiming no one else has to go through this, just one of the few black women! Damn!

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

#517

Post by nickff »

chipsa wrote: post #513
nickff wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, do people who put their 'badge on the table' actually quit when they lose, or is it just a saying that's used to show emphasis?

If they don’t quit, the next time they try it, it won't be believed.

I’m more interested in whether it’s interpreted as an actual ultimatum, or just an emphasis.

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

#518

Post by kaitai »

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.

Well, I agree that if you're weak and need yes-men working for you, that's certainly the way to manage. Another way to do it is hire dumb & docile.

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

#519

Post by ergocoder »

aylmao wrote: post #178
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.

I agree. Worth highlighting: > ...if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date . Google's response to this was not accepting of her terms, it was to force an end-date for her —immediately— and lock her out of their systems ASAP.

"We can't meet your demand. But sure please hang around and let us know your end date at your liking. I know you are unhappy with the company. But that's okay. Nobody cares about security anyway."

It's just unreasonable.

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

#520

Post by free_rms »

dvtrn wrote: post #515
free_rms wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess my beef is, how come everything is game for criticism EXCEPT the critical theorists? Why can't we analyze their power incentives as well?

What stands in your way other than being faced with possible objections to, and responses in kind to whatever your critiques may be? Objections and responses that-I would boldly say-are not stopping you from making said critiques, or rather, they hold no enforceable power that precludes you or anyone from making rebuttals of your own. They are just that, objections and responses. Which you are free to entertain or no…

Alright, here's my substantive criticism of how CRT affects various groups in practice (not doxxing my membership in any of these groups):

Elite coastal white: Absolutely not threatened. Beneficiary of the system and knows how to navigate all of the social codes.

Less elite or poor white: Takes the bullet that was aimed at the elite white.

Asian: Scores way too high on tests for their % of the population and this is a problem for a worldview that cares about what % of college slots go to which races

Professional class black or latin: Does great, huge beneficiary of CRT activism

Working class black or latin: Invisible and accidentally hurt despite good intentions. CRT proponents tried to pass a referendum legalizing racial discrimination in hiring in California this year, which would have helped professional class POC and probably hurt this class. Fortunately it failed.

EDIT: I removed some cattiness above. Not trying to pull the rug out from under you but I'm rate-limited and wanted to focus on my actual points. I don't think I'm a caricature of 'unwoke' person who never thought about or dealt with these things before.

Post reply on HN