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

561–570 of 607 posts

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

#561

Post by bagacrap »

gundmc wrote: post #60
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…

It seems reasonable to choose to publish something you wrote yourself (and presumably cleared with legal/PR) and not publish something written by someone else with an intended internal audience. It would be WAY worse if they unilaterally published Timnit's private emails publicly.

Indeed, it's usually considered poor form to forward emails to broader mailing lists.

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

#562

Post by wpietri »

JamesBarney wrote: post #532
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.

Judging from most of her writing online (which is all pretty assertive) I think it's far more likely she said "if you don't fix this, I can't continue working here". And that's both a negotiating position and a resignation.

Something can't be both. A resignation is an unconditional desire to leave. "If you don't fix this, I can't continue working here", though, is a desire to stay.

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

#563

Post by bagacrap »

jkbhzsdfkhjnzs wrote: post #237

> "So if you would like to change things, I suggest focusing on leadership accountability and thinking through what types of pressures can also be applied from the outside. For instance, I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is the entity that started forcing tech companies to report their diversity numbers. Writing more documents and saying things over and over again will tire you out but no one will listen.…

That paragraph, in hindsight, sounds like foreshadowing. This news cycle is her own "pressure applied from the outside" because she got tired of writing papers.

Seems pretty transparent.

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

#564

Post by wpietri »

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.

Citation needed, for sure. I certainly believe that most companies don't particularly value honesty, especially when pointing out managerial flaws. But looking at what she wrote with a manager's eyes, I don't see anything I'd fire her for. But like aylmao writes, I see it more as an impassioned and probably valid critique of DEI work that is more posture than substance. What I see is somebody who really cares about the problem, and who could be channeled into productive work as long as that work truly has impact.

I also suspect that if she'd written the equivalently passionate comment about a technical failure or bad product choices, people here would be cheering her on. Especially if she were a he.

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

#565

Post by [deleted] »

vecter wrote: post #238
hobofan wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why Possibly because she made a personal problem into a team/department problem by asking their colleagues to stop working ("stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference"). I couldn't imagine a company where such a call for work refusal wouldn't immediately lose you a ton of goodwill.

It's so obvious that she was "negotiating" in bad faith by threatening to quit if she didn't get what she wanted (i.e. throwing a tantrum) that I'm surprised that other people are surprised at Google's response.

[deleted]

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

#566

Post by throwawayriver »

vecter wrote: post #238
hobofan wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why Possibly because she made a personal problem into a team/department problem by asking their colleagues to stop working ("stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference"). I couldn't imagine a company where such a call for work refusal wouldn't immediately lose you a ton of goodwill.

It's so obvious that she was "negotiating" in bad faith by threatening to quit if she didn't get what she wanted (i.e. throwing a tantrum) that I'm surprised that other people are surprised at Google's response.

Welcome to the status quo in the Bay Area. Mentally deranged leftists are having public breakdowns because their usual tactic of calling any slight some kind of -ism is slowly ceasing to work.

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

#567

Post by jeremysalwen »

angry_octet wrote: post #374
joshuamorton wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff's statement is a lie. I work at Google, and the publication approval process doesn't normally take to weeks. Any Google employee can verify this, and others have, both in this thread and on twitter. There's some documentation that asks for 2 weeks, but it's not followed, and inconsistent application of policy is absolutely a concern in a case like this. A summary of the events, as best as I can tell, is the norm…

But this supposes that there is some deep and nefarious need for Google to kill a paper written by some AI Ethics people. From looking at their recent pubs I can't think of anything remotely significant about any one paper they could write. Hopefully we'll get a full leak at some point.

Nothing deep and nefarious needed. The rules were ambiguous (not enforced) and they didn't want this paper published, so they just had to say "no". No extreme motivation is necessary. It's hard to imagine that they expected an ultimatum from Timnit, and the resulting PR disaster. Now that it's in the news, I imagine they actually do have a "deep" need to protect their image by controlling the narrative.

Full Disclosure: I work at Google.

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

#568

Post by cbsmith »

logicslave wrote: post #4
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…

Do you want to know whats interesting? I read alot of computer science research, particularly what comes out of Google. Its clear to me that details are left out of specific papers, especially how things are done in sub systems. But, like a jig saw puzzle, I discovered that many papers are actually descriptions of computing systems and algorithms that interact. If you read between the lines and squint your eyes, you…

Oh yeah, absolutely. It's not at all hard to see the systems view of this.

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

#569

Post by cbsmith »

petulla wrote: post #52
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…

This response really seems like gaslighting. He doesn't address her concerns and glosses over whether she was held to a different standard than others at GR.

With such public communications, there really isn't much of a chance they'll be detailed and specific. It's why they are so rarely done.

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

#570

Post by foota »

throawaydmg wrote: post #48
foota wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you replying to the right person?
Post reply on HN