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

541–550 of 607 posts

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

#541

Post by JamesBarney »

Barrin92 wrote: post #247
sbarre wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and obligations are, and I'm sure Google's lawyers are also getting all their ducks in a row. This is spin at best, gaslighting at worst. We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)..

>We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth

If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.

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

#542

Post by dragonwriter »

JamesBarney wrote: post #541
Barrin92 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth

If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.

If Exxon had a fracking safety department, it's goal would be to help Exxon sell it's fracking as safe.

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

#543

Post by fuzzylightbulb »

thisgoodlife wrote: post #14
dang wrote: post #7

Previous threads on this ongoing story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25289445

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

Timnit: "if you don't give me x, then i am going to do y in a week."

Google: "we aren't going to give you x, so you can have y. in fact, you can have y starting right now."

i'd say she tendered a conditional resignation and they called her bluff and accepted it.

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

#544

Post by mempko »

nickff wrote: post #383
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?

She definitely could, and she could present herself as the hero of the story who resigned in protest, but she has chosen a different narrative.

She is clearly the hero. Public seems to be on her side.

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

#545

Post by bnj »

darepublic wrote: post #468

Remember that Google fired James Damore for a lot less and the left was really happy about it

My impression was that James Damore was fired when his memo alleged that men were essentially a target of discrimination, while here this researcher it seems has been fired in a way that seems to be an act of discrimination.

I don’t think there’s a contradiction in the reaction, personally.

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

#546

Post by mempko »

roenxi wrote: post #354
acoard wrote: post #64

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. They couch these in terms of rigour, but the substance of the problem has to do with her criticisms against AI. Ultimately it makes the whole Ethical AI department look more like a rubber stamp for Google.

Big oil companies don't pump out damning studies on oil use, big tech companies won't pump out research damning the use of their tech. If people have an expectation of Google to turn out academically pure research then I certainly respect the position and encourage it in reality. But thinking like that means life is going to contain a bunch of surprises that really shouldn't be surprising. Google is simply not going…

Companies are given a life under the premise they provide a social good. They get a charter from the government. They are what's called a legal fiction. Government should demand AI ethics instead of letting the companies self regulate. (after all, most AI is developed with gov funds)

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

#547

Post by mempko »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #67
theobeers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the examples of issues flagged in review that Jeff keeps highlighting—like Timnit’s alleged failure to mention recent work to reduce the environmental impact of large models—are themselves a bit worrisome. 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.

> 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'…

What if they aren't doing work to combat the problems? As a citizen I want to know.

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

#548

Post by in_cahoots »

xapata wrote: post #375
skissane wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they strike me as the sort of thing that is routinely addressed in the camera-ready version of papers by adding a few lines to the related work section What I don't understand is why in the discussion nobody proposed amending the paper rather than withdrawing it. If Dean's issue was it didn't cite papers X,Y and Z, rather than demand a withdrawal, why didn't he just demand "I want you to amend the paper to add cite…

Jeff's document says she submitted without asking for approval, so the request was to withdraw that unapproved submission. It is reasonable to interpret that as permission to revise and resubmit. She seems to have had her heart set on this particular conference and submission deadline.

That’s not what it says, though. It says her paper was approved, she submitted, and then a reviewer had a complaint. He seems to be deliberately vague here to make it seem as if she was acting without permission, but as I read it she had a vid reason to submit. This lines up with other people in the thread saying submitting hours before the deadline was risky, but common.

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

#549

Post by oefrha »

geofft wrote: post #536
geofft wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not under dispute. What's under dispute is: 1) Is the review protocol that requires a two-week review period a peer review process intended to maintain scientific rigor, or an internal controls process intended to prevent unwanted disclosure of trade secrets, PII, etc.? Repeating the comment at the very top of the thread: > Maybe different teams are different, but on my previous team within Google AI, we thoug…

BTW, a couple more examples of Googlers saying this isn't a firm deadline by any means and one-day reviews are quite permissible: https://twitter.com/william_fitz/status/1335004771573354496 https://twitter.com/mena_gonzalo/status/1335066989191106561 (an intern!)

Papers differ. A short, straightforward, low-impact paper on a non-controversial topic could probably be reviewed in a glance or even rubberstamped. A long, complex, high-impact paper on a controversial topic (or worse, a paper with a fundamental conflict of interest) might take a long time and definitely can't be rubberstamped. The paper at question seems to fall under the latter category? It's like skipping a stop sign; 99 times you do it in your neighborhood with no one around and there are no consequences whatsoever, but that one time you do it in downtown with a cop parked right around the corner and you get a ticket.

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

#550

Post by dash2 »

Footkerchief wrote: post #293
lokar wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AIUI, they asked her to retract it because she submitted it before getting final approval, and then they in fact decided not to approve it.

Dean's statement is clear that it was approved before being submitted: > Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted. A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed th…

Sounds like the “editor” or analogous person didn’t wait to hear back from the “referees”. Whose fault this is is not made clear.
Post reply on HN