7 ms·

tl;dr;: + "Google’s new review procedure asks that researchers consult with legal, policy and public relations teams before pursuing topics such as face and se

tl;dr;: + "Google’s new review procedure asks that researchers consult with legal, policy and public relations teams before pursuing topics such as face and sentiment analysis and categorizations of race, gender or political affiliation, according to internal webpages explaining the policy." + "A senior Google manager reviewing a study on content recommendation technology shortly before publication this summer told authors to 'take great care to strike a positive tone,' according to internal correspondence read to Reuters." + surprisingly, there's not much else in the article beyond those two sentences Edit: as commenters noted, there is more in the article. I apologize for not being clear that the last bullet is just MY OPINION. That is, for me the rest is not as meaningful as some consider it. I guess, if you care deeply on the subject, you'll want to read the article and decide for yourself.

daniel957 6y ago
Why does your last bullet point make me feel like we read two different articles?
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  fwiw I agree with the parent comment. This article, especially the ludicrous attempt to tie in the Gebru stuff, is super weak and absent of any details or anything substantial. I don’t see anything in the article that suggests Google suppresses unfavorable research or censors authors whatsoever. Instead it sounds like a lot of whining and complaining from exceedingly privileged researchers who want some version of tenure to apply within for-profit companies and seem too immature to accept that legal and compliance functions within a large corporation very differently than in academia.
  - daniel957 6y ago
    Why did you find the mention of Timnit Gebru ludicrous? The issues are closely related. In fact, I was _expecting_ the article to mention it. Google tells Researcher 1 to re-word things in X way for Y reason. Google tells Timnit Gebru to re-word things in X way for Y reason. The X and Y are the same. Based on the rest of your response, I believe you are having trouble reading the article in an objective manner. You say that it sounds like whining to you. That’s because you already think it is. You came into the article with this viewpoint about academics in corporations already established. This is why I also found your comment hilarious. You already think Timnit is a whiny researcher. You say this article is about whiny researchers. Yet it’s _ludicrous_ to mention Timnit in this article? Also, Jeff Dean lied in his email. Maybe that’s why you’re confused about the Timnit situation. I’m assuming you don’t work at Google.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      You appear to be mistaken on nearly all the facts about the Gebru situation. Given this it seems clear we would draw very different conclusions. Anyone claiming Jeff Dean lied must be so disconnected from the actual facts and so prejudiced to blame Google and view Gebru’s actions as acceptable that their opinion amounts to nothing but partisan gainsaying. To be clear, it’s ok to disagree with Jeff Dean or to dispute his charitability in accepting Gebru’s ultimatum-based resignation, but to claim he publicly lied is beyond the pale.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie. I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks. (I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
square_usual 6y ago
What about this: "Subsequent correspondence from a researcher to reviewers shows authors “updated to remove all references to Google products.” A draft seen by Reuters had mentioned Google-owned YouTube" or this: """A draft reviewed by Reuters included “concerns” that this technology can promote “disinformation, discriminatory or otherwise unfair results” and “insufficient diversity of content,” as well as lead to “political polarization.” The final publication instead says the systems can promote “accurate information, fairness, and diversity of content.”""" or this: "A paper this month on AI for understanding a foreign language softened a reference to how the Google Translate product was making mistakes following a request from company reviewers, a source said" or this: "A draft described how such disclosures could infringe copyrights or violate European privacy law, a person familiar with the matter said. Following company reviews, authors removed the legal risks, and Google published the paper" Seems like there's a lot more than "two sentences".

daniel957 6y ago

Why does your last bullet point make me feel like we read two different articles?

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
fwiw I agree with the parent comment. This article, especially the ludicrous attempt to tie in the Gebru stuff, is super weak and absent of any details or anything substantial. I don’t see anything in the article that suggests Google suppresses unfavorable research or censors authors whatsoever. Instead it sounds like a lot of whining and complaining from exceedingly privileged researchers who want some version of tenure to apply within for-profit companies and seem too immature to accept that legal and compliance functions within a large corporation very differently than in academia.
- daniel957 6y ago
  Why did you find the mention of Timnit Gebru ludicrous? The issues are closely related. In fact, I was _expecting_ the article to mention it. Google tells Researcher 1 to re-word things in X way for Y reason. Google tells Timnit Gebru to re-word things in X way for Y reason. The X and Y are the same. Based on the rest of your response, I believe you are having trouble reading the article in an objective manner. You say that it sounds like whining to you. That’s because you already think it is. You came into the article with this viewpoint about academics in corporations already established. This is why I also found your comment hilarious. You already think Timnit is a whiny researcher. You say this article is about whiny researchers. Yet it’s _ludicrous_ to mention Timnit in this article? Also, Jeff Dean lied in his email. Maybe that’s why you’re confused about the Timnit situation. I’m assuming you don’t work at Google.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    You appear to be mistaken on nearly all the facts about the Gebru situation. Given this it seems clear we would draw very different conclusions. Anyone claiming Jeff Dean lied must be so disconnected from the actual facts and so prejudiced to blame Google and view Gebru’s actions as acceptable that their opinion amounts to nothing but partisan gainsaying. To be clear, it’s ok to disagree with Jeff Dean or to dispute his charitability in accepting Gebru’s ultimatum-based resignation, but to claim he publicly lied is beyond the pale.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie. I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks. (I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago

square_usual 6y ago

What about this: "Subsequent correspondence from a researcher to reviewers shows authors “updated to remove all references to Google products.” A draft seen by Reuters had mentioned Google-owned YouTube" or this: """A draft reviewed by Reuters included “concerns” that this technology can promote “disinformation, discriminatory or otherwise unfair results” and “insufficient diversity of content,” as well as lead to “political polarization.” The final publication instead says the systems can promote “accurate information, fairness, and diversity of content.”""" or this: "A paper this month on AI for understanding a foreign language softened a reference to how the Google Translate product was making mistakes following a request from company reviewers, a source said" or this: "A draft described how such disclosures could infringe copyrights or violate European privacy law, a person familiar with the matter said. Following company reviews, authors removed the legal risks, and Google published the paper" Seems like there's a lot more than "two sentences".