4 ms·

I found this particularly telling: >But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero c

by ipnon 6y ago

I found this particularly telling: >But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation. Decisions in megacorporations are made in one direction, from the top on down. If this is her main point of contention, I sympathize but that's what you get for joining one of the largest corporations in the world. It seems both parties will be better off without each other. I hope her research won't suffer for it.

zemo 6y ago
> I hope her research won't suffer for it. of course it will. The big tech companies have created networks of users and user data that is beyond anything that can be replicated in an academic or laboratory setting. By saying that it's fine for corporations to have draconian oversight over research about the systems they build, what you are saying is that these systems cannot be researched for any purposes other than to make them more profitable. That is an abdication of responsibility.
- ipnon 6y ago
  edit: I'd also like to point out the obvious: Google was censoring her publications. How can you suggest that remaining in that environment is going to be conducive to her publishing high quality research? I disagree because I don't think Big N has exclusive access to the data necessary for cutting edge research. You don't need petabytes of data to train cutting edge neural networks. It also seems she published the paper she is best known for before joining Google, suggesting academics are not submitting subpar research compared to Big N.
kaymanb 6y ago
If her goal was to perform research that would positively impact AI that runs in production, then taking a position at Google doesn't seem like the worst idea. Especially with since their stated principles [1] seem to fit that agenda. Unfortunately enacting change "from within" isn't always easy. It's easy to forget that Google AI still sits underneath the megacorp. [1] https://ai.google/principles/ https://ai.google/principles/

by ipnon 6y ago

zemo 6y ago

> I hope her research won't suffer for it. of course it will. The big tech companies have created networks of users and user data that is beyond anything that can be replicated in an academic or laboratory setting. By saying that it's fine for corporations to have draconian oversight over research about the systems they build, what you are saying is that these systems cannot be researched for any purposes other than to make them more profitable. That is an abdication of responsibility.

ipnon 6y ago
edit: I'd also like to point out the obvious: Google was censoring her publications. How can you suggest that remaining in that environment is going to be conducive to her publishing high quality research? I disagree because I don't think Big N has exclusive access to the data necessary for cutting edge research. You don't need petabytes of data to train cutting edge neural networks. It also seems she published the paper she is best known for before joining Google, suggesting academics are not submitting subpar research compared to Big N.

kaymanb 6y ago

If her goal was to perform research that would positively impact AI that runs in production, then taking a position at Google doesn't seem like the worst idea. Especially with since their stated principles [1] seem to fit that agenda. Unfortunately enacting change "from within" isn't always easy. It's easy to forget that Google AI still sits underneath the megacorp. [1] https://ai.google/principles/ https://ai.google/principles/