3 ms·

I'm curious about this "submitted paper for review 1 day before publication" assertion. From my reading, it sounded like work on this paper had been going on fo

I'm curious about this "submitted paper for review 1 day before publication" assertion. From my reading, it sounded like work on this paper had been going on for a while. The email quoted on "Platformer" makes it sound like communication with HR (which seems weird, honestly, for a research paper) had been going on for at least two months.[0] > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). The NY Times reported that four of the researchers working on the paper also worked at Google.[1] > In an interview with The Times, Dr. Gebru said her exasperation stemmed from the company’s treatment of a research paper she had written with six other researchers, four of them at Google. It seems to me Google management should have been aware of this paper prior to the day before publication. ---- [0]: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researcher-timnit-gebru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researc...

nebulous1 6y ago
I don't think google are saying they weren't aware of the paper prior to the day-before, just that they hadn't seen the actual paper itself before then. Out of curiosity do people think that a company either should or would publish self-funded research that's detrimental to their PR? I'm not sure that this is a realistic expectation with our current methods of company governance (which should probably be changed). I'm assuming the research isn't overly safety oriented and is more like "overuse of google leads to decreased overall well-being" rather that "use of the cigarettes that we sell leads to significantly reduced life expectancy". Of course that statement begs the question of where the line between the two lies.
- cmiles74 6y ago
  I did find a Reddit post with the abstract and some discussion from a person who claims to be a reviewer. https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_the_abstract_of_the_paper_that_led_to_timnit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t... In my opinion, it seemed pretty low key. But I've only read the abstract. In terms of Google's expectations and what should we consider reasonable, I'm really not sure... I do think that when they hired this person to be "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team at Google", they probably should've guessed that there could, possibly, be a conflict between "make loads of money" and "ethical".

nebulous1 6y ago

I don't think google are saying they weren't aware of the paper prior to the day-before, just that they hadn't seen the actual paper itself before then. Out of curiosity do people think that a company either should or would publish self-funded research that's detrimental to their PR? I'm not sure that this is a realistic expectation with our current methods of company governance (which should probably be changed). I'm assuming the research isn't overly safety oriented and is more like "overuse of google leads to decreased overall well-being" rather that "use of the cigarettes that we sell leads to significantly reduced life expectancy". Of course that statement begs the question of where the line between the two lies.

cmiles74 6y ago
I did find a Reddit post with the abstract and some discussion from a person who claims to be a reviewer. https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_the_abstract_of_the_paper_that_led_to_timnit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t... In my opinion, it seemed pretty low key. But I've only read the abstract. In terms of Google's expectations and what should we consider reasonable, I'm really not sure... I do think that when they hired this person to be "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team at Google", they probably should've guessed that there could, possibly, be a conflict between "make loads of money" and "ethical".