4 ms·
> I've seen this exact text in at least five responses to this and similar articles, all without any substantive information. Sad and embarrassing, HN. She is
by mldrama2020 6y ago
> I've seen this exact text in at least five responses to this and similar articles, all without any substantive information. Sad and embarrassing, HN.
She is giving bits and pieces as information. With already available information, she asked Google to reveal the name of internal reviewers. If not she threatened to quit, Google said bye to her.
- cmiles74 6y agoIf someone was preventing my paper from being published, pretty much at the deadline, I would also like to know who they were and address their concerns directly. If everyone at Google is a grown adult, I think they should be willing to defend their last-minute issues with this person's paper directly. Why should they need to shroud themselves in secrecy?
- mldrama2020 6y agoIt is no secret. The paper attacks BERT and other LMs, which in turn affects Google's bottom line. If you want to write such a paper, go and do it in Academia not in Google's payroll. You do not have freedom to publish anything you want in industry. That's just common sense, mate.
- cmiles74 6y agoI have to disagree, isn't this exactly the sort of thing Google hired them for? Wikipedia lists their job title as "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team at Google."
- treesprite82 6y ago> [...] defend their last-minute issues [...] Jeff Dean's response claims that the paper was "only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline", when Google "require two weeks" for their internal review process. So the issues were last-minute, but only because the paper was. > Why should they need to shroud themselves in secrecy? Anonymity is common in paper reviews, to prevent retribution and help keep it objective.