4 ms·

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

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".