4 ms·
My researcher acquaintances at industry labs at IBM, Microsoft, HP, Xerox, ATT, Bell, DEC, Compaq, etc. never have had to have their papers reviewed internally
by drfuchs 6y ago
My researcher acquaintances at industry labs at IBM, Microsoft, HP, Xerox, ATT, Bell, DEC, Compaq, etc. never have had to have their papers reviewed internally before submitting them to conferences or journals. What's up with Google?
- gcr 6y agoUntil now, nobody on my previous team at Google had to have their papers reviewed internally for scientific rigour either. (We have a publication approval process, but its purpose is to prevent IP leaks and maybe shield liability, not uphold scientific rigour standards)
- lokar 6y agoI've seen Urs reject papers out of Tech Infra that he thought were not interesting enough
- lallysingh 6y agoThis is the AI Ethics team in a company betting their future on AI. They know they have a bubbling ethics problem and they've screwed over their best chance to do anything other than completely fuck it up. In history, this will be a wtf double facepalm moment.
- kazamaloo 6y agoTechnically you can submit it without pubapprove unless somebody rats you out and you might face some repercussions. Otherwise every paper is supposed to go through AI Ethics committee review along with other types of reviews.
- bnj 6y agoI wonder how consistently these standards are applied, even zeroing in on Google. If it turns out that most people within the company don’t face a barrier from this process in the same way then that sounds like a really problematic symptom.
- htrp 6y agoApparently not very consistently, at least if you're Google Brain CA https://twitter.com/le_roux_nicolas/status/1334601960972906496 https://twitter.com/le_roux_nicolas/status/13346019609729064...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]