4 ms·

That isn't the impression I had from reading the principal's statements, to wit: > Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice bef

That isn't the impression I had from reading the principal's statements, to wit: > Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted. It seems like someone short-circuited the review process and submitted without review to meet a deadline, with a post-submission review. When this occurred, it was not all green lights. The expectation is that you then pull the submission and, post review, submit elsewhere. After all, conferences are all virtual now, it is not a hardship to submit elsewhere. If you have other information as to the facts or the internal process do tell.

Footkerchief 6y ago
How do you interpret "approved for submission" as "submitted without review"?
- abeyer 6y ago
  Perhaps by not eliding the first part of "instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission."
joshuamorton 6y ago
Jeff's statement is a lie. I work at Google, and the publication approval process doesn't normally take to weeks. Any Google employee can verify this, and others have, both in this thread and on twitter. There's some documentation that asks for 2 weeks, but it's not followed, and inconsistent application of policy is absolutely a concern in a case like this. A summary of the events, as best as I can tell, is the normal presubmission review was done. After the paper was approved and submitted, someone, whether this was upper management or some other entity, did some additional review and required that the authors withdraw (?, but retract is the wrong term) the paper. From what I know, both firsthand and from other sources[0], while not spotless, the issues with the paper were mostly nitpicks and fairly straightforward to resolve. That they weren't even provided until some escalation from Dr. Gebru is strange. That even after they were, sort of, provided, she and her team were not given the option to address them in the paper, is extraordinarily strange. [0]: 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...
- angry_octet 6y ago
  But this supposes that there is some deep and nefarious need for Google to kill a paper written by some AI Ethics people. From looking at their recent pubs I can't think of anything remotely significant about any one paper they could write. Hopefully we'll get a full leak at some point.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    If it's any consolation, this also deeply confuses me. The entire handling of the squashing doesn't really make sense given the context I have.
  - jeremysalwen 6y ago
    Nothing deep and nefarious needed. The rules were ambiguous (not enforced) and they didn't want this paper published, so they just had to say "no". No extreme motivation is necessary. It's hard to imagine that they expected an ultimatum from Timnit, and the resulting PR disaster. Now that it's in the news, I imagine they actually do have a "deep" need to protect their image by controlling the narrative. Full Disclosure: I work at Google.
    - mattdeboard 6y ago
      I was re-reading The Gervais Principle this past week. It really does cover this situation & what you describe as the ambiguity in the rules in Part V, “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.” https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-... > This is a simple and child-like example of the operation of a basic human instinct: the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose or HIWTYL (let’s pronounce that “hightail”) instinct. It is the tendency to grab more than your fair share of the rewards of success, and less than your fair share of the blame for failure. Now whether one buys into that as literally true or not is one thing, but I think it is definitely a useful way of thinking about situations like these. In fact, the “Golden Ticket Reconsidered” section at the link sounds somewhat like I imagined incentives within AI ethics research at Google are structured: 1. Cut a deal for performance-linked bonus for successful initiative 2. Set up a committee and charter it to collect, vet & recommend ideas 3. Drop hints & suggestions to create things that leadership favors 4. Create appropriate urgency in the work of the committee to achieve the risk-levels you want in the ideas produced. The outcome of such a system: > If it works, you praise everybody generously, hand out a few gift certificates, keep your bonus to yourself, and move on. If it fails, you blame the people in charge of the work for failing to consider an “obvious” (with 20/20 hindsight) issue. The chair of such a committee would likely be Clueless [a term of art in the blog series], his appointment being a false honor — a case of being set up take a fall Further on, the author brings up the “Hanlon Dodge.” Dean’s characterization of Gebru’s termination (“resignation”) seems quite like that to me.

Footkerchief 6y ago

How do you interpret "approved for submission" as "submitted without review"?

abeyer 6y ago
Perhaps by not eliding the first part of "instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission."

joshuamorton 6y ago

Jeff's statement is a lie. I work at Google, and the publication approval process doesn't normally take to weeks. Any Google employee can verify this, and others have, both in this thread and on twitter. There's some documentation that asks for 2 weeks, but it's not followed, and inconsistent application of policy is absolutely a concern in a case like this. A summary of the events, as best as I can tell, is the normal presubmission review was done. After the paper was approved and submitted, someone, whether this was upper management or some other entity, did some additional review and required that the authors withdraw (?, but retract is the wrong term) the paper. From what I know, both firsthand and from other sources[0], while not spotless, the issues with the paper were mostly nitpicks and fairly straightforward to resolve. That they weren't even provided until some escalation from Dr. Gebru is strange. That even after they were, sort of, provided, she and her team were not given the option to address them in the paper, is extraordinarily strange. [0]: 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...

angry_octet 6y ago
But this supposes that there is some deep and nefarious need for Google to kill a paper written by some AI Ethics people. From looking at their recent pubs I can't think of anything remotely significant about any one paper they could write. Hopefully we'll get a full leak at some point.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  If it's any consolation, this also deeply confuses me. The entire handling of the squashing doesn't really make sense given the context I have.
- jeremysalwen 6y ago
  Nothing deep and nefarious needed. The rules were ambiguous (not enforced) and they didn't want this paper published, so they just had to say "no". No extreme motivation is necessary. It's hard to imagine that they expected an ultimatum from Timnit, and the resulting PR disaster. Now that it's in the news, I imagine they actually do have a "deep" need to protect their image by controlling the narrative. Full Disclosure: I work at Google.
  - mattdeboard 6y ago
    I was re-reading The Gervais Principle this past week. It really does cover this situation & what you describe as the ambiguity in the rules in Part V, “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.” https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-... > This is a simple and child-like example of the operation of a basic human instinct: the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose or HIWTYL (let’s pronounce that “hightail”) instinct. It is the tendency to grab more than your fair share of the rewards of success, and less than your fair share of the blame for failure. Now whether one buys into that as literally true or not is one thing, but I think it is definitely a useful way of thinking about situations like these. In fact, the “Golden Ticket Reconsidered” section at the link sounds somewhat like I imagined incentives within AI ethics research at Google are structured: 1. Cut a deal for performance-linked bonus for successful initiative 2. Set up a committee and charter it to collect, vet & recommend ideas 3. Drop hints & suggestions to create things that leadership favors 4. Create appropriate urgency in the work of the committee to achieve the risk-levels you want in the ideas produced. The outcome of such a system: > If it works, you praise everybody generously, hand out a few gift certificates, keep your bonus to yourself, and move on. If it fails, you blame the people in charge of the work for failing to consider an “obvious” (with 20/20 hindsight) issue. The chair of such a committee would likely be Clueless [a term of art in the blog series], his appointment being a false honor — a case of being set up take a fall Further on, the author brings up the “Hanlon Dodge.” Dean’s characterization of Gebru’s termination (“resignation”) seems quite like that to me.