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

81–90 of 607 posts

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

#81

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

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'm not sure what you mean by "unprofessional" here. In my eyes, a vague statement that they had some irreconcilable differences but she's still a great researcher is nearly the archetype of professionalism. It would be extremely unprofessional for him to publicly criticize an email Timnit sent privately to the Women in Google Brain group.

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

#82

Post by dekhn »

bnj wrote: post #41
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?

That's in court, or whatever, not academic or industrial anonymous peer review.

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

#83

Post by sidlls »

bnj wrote: post #41
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?

In the context of peer review it’s common, or at least not uncommon, for reviewers to be anonymous. Personally I think it should be completely blind both directions to promote maximum objectivity.

Whether that applies at all in this case is a separate matter.

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

#85

Post by ketzo »

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.

Right -- he once again talks about "accepting" her resignation, when it reeeeeally just looks like they fired her. At the very least, she certainly feels like she was fired; why is that not mentioned at all? Even just, I don't know, "sorry we were abrupt?"

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

#86

Post by Dig1t »

wilde wrote: post #50
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.

"Do X or I'll quit" is a childish way to negotiate, its akin to a child throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way. It's extremely unprofessional and not something a team player would do. I think its clear why they took her up on her offer.

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

#87

Post by neatze »

wilde wrote: post #50
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.

Some people don't have time for an bluff game, person choose the tone in negations with in power opponent without considering full extent of bluffing consequences.

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

#88

Post by orsenthil »

acoard wrote: post #64
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.

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.

> Yeah, put more simply, they pushed out someone in their Ethical AI department because they did not soften critiques against AI enough.

I didn't read that. I read the person _demanded_ who said a particular critical feedback, or questioned the approaches instead of addressing them. The person gave the ultimatum to resign if details were not shared.

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

#89

Post by pseudalopex »

skissane wrote: post #73
Imnimo wrote: post #21

This reads to me like Google felt that the paper painted some of their other technologies in a poor light, and wanted to insert language that made them look better. The way he describes their objections, 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. Not the sort of thing that a conference reviewer or an internal…

> 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…

Gebru complained about not being told what the criticisms were. That implies she was willing to consider feedback.

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

#90

Post by fatbird »

skissane wrote: post #73
Imnimo wrote: post #21

This reads to me like Google felt that the paper painted some of their other technologies in a poor light, and wanted to insert language that made them look better. The way he describes their objections, 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. Not the sort of thing that a conference reviewer or an internal…

> 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…

In Timnit's account, she said she asked for specific feedback so it could be addressed and the paper published; this was denied to her and is part of her complaint over which she resigned.
Post reply on HN