3 ms·

No, Google should never have messed with their researchers’ publications; it’s always the coverup that becomes the story. Contrast Google Research with Microsof

No, Google should never have messed with their researchers’ publications; it’s always the coverup that becomes the story. Contrast Google Research with Microsoft Research, which enjoys a stellar reputation and independence.

crumbshot 6y ago
Exactly this. Indeed, looking at Timnit Gebru as an example of someone who worked at both, I'd be very surprised if her paper that was censored at Google would have had any issues in being published if she were still working for Microsoft. Despite the research being, by implication, critical of a growing market segment in Azure, regarding its environmental impact and so on.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
Absolutely, that's the only sane stance towards it. The original poster seems to imply that it's impossible to do sustainable ethical business because of conflicts of interests, but there are many ways to deal with such conflicts of interests without firing researchers or suppressing papers. This case was really just mismanagement by Google. They could have just as well taken those researchers seriously, allow them to investigate whether there is systemic discrimination and then try to correct it, as was the whole point of hiring them in the first place. AI ethics researchers all over the world are publishing articles about the dangers of serious discrimination by large language models. Not addressing this and firing researchers who were working on it on their behalf is not going to help Google in the long run at all.
jariel 6y ago
This is upside down. There is no reason for Google to pay researchers and to not have some ownership over the process or outcome in some manner, in fact, it's unreasonable to contemplate otherwise. Google was exceedingly gracious by sponsoring the work and having it make public in the first place. The demands made of the researchers in question were quite minor, and completely appropriate, and frankly immaterial to the thrust of concerns anyhow. To boot, accusations of 'racism' are vicious and repulsive. If researchers want to be completely independent in the terms they might expect in academia - that's entirely understandable - perfectly fine - but they'll have to find jobs elsewhere. Google has a Search Engine and bunch of other products, and to suggest that their major investment in research should entitle them to some kind of fair parameterize of the process is very reasonable. To remedy the situation, and an obvious failure on Google's part, they should spend some time thinking about where that line is drawn, and what kind of expectations should be in place. In retrospect, it seems like a management failure for there to have been any misunderstanding on that front. But the point is -> there is a line. Researchers that don't want to with those parameters can make the choice not to. That's why we have both private and publicly funded research.
Aunche 6y ago
How do you know that the publication wasn't pulled because they genuinely thought it didn't meet their quality standards? When this happens at Microsoft research, the author makes a few revisions and moves on rather than accuse Microsoft of racism.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Gebru and Mitchell were both previously employed by MSR in the same context without issue. Google didn't allow the team to make revisions. They stated the paper couldn't be published, period. The difference here is very clearly the management, not the researchers.
  - tryonenow 6y ago
    Timnit went on a woke shaming crusade against google and her management. She embodied the toxic, progressive, self-serving, sanctimonious entryism that has infested so many of our institutions, and they were right to get rid of her.
  - Rule35 6y ago
    The paper was submitted late. Because of this, and probably previous actions, there was a special go/no-go review instead of a weeks-long back and forth. If the paper was good it could go through the process and be ready for the next conference. Nobody is seriously suggesting that those words were axed forever.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      This is factually inaccurate in a variety of ways. > The paper was submitted late. This is not true. The paper was submitted for internal review with about the median amount of notice. The normal internal review process was and is usually very quick, it is not normally a weeks-long back and forth. Importantly, the paper actually passed the normal review process before being submitted to the conference. > there was a special go/no-go review It's unclear to what extent the special review was a go/no-go review. It may have been. The review however was not due to the paper being submitted late. As far as I know the special review was actually only done retroactively, after the paper had been submitted externally and approved by the normal internal process. > If the paper was good it could go through the process and be ready for the next conference. Even after submission for conference review, there was ample time for back and forth and review internally. Timnit asked if there was feedback she could incorporate into the paper, as even after the paper was submitted to the conference, they could revise it. Google's response was initially to not provide any specific feedback, and then to say that the feedback could not be addressed, the paper could only be unsubmitted. > Nobody is seriously suggesting that those words were axed forever. Actually yes, that appears to be precisely what happened.

crumbshot 6y ago

Exactly this. Indeed, looking at Timnit Gebru as an example of someone who worked at both, I'd be very surprised if her paper that was censored at Google would have had any issues in being published if she were still working for Microsoft. Despite the research being, by implication, critical of a growing market segment in Azure, regarding its environmental impact and so on.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

Absolutely, that's the only sane stance towards it. The original poster seems to imply that it's impossible to do sustainable ethical business because of conflicts of interests, but there are many ways to deal with such conflicts of interests without firing researchers or suppressing papers. This case was really just mismanagement by Google. They could have just as well taken those researchers seriously, allow them to investigate whether there is systemic discrimination and then try to correct it, as was the whole point of hiring them in the first place. AI ethics researchers all over the world are publishing articles about the dangers of serious discrimination by large language models. Not addressing this and firing researchers who were working on it on their behalf is not going to help Google in the long run at all.

jariel 6y ago

This is upside down. There is no reason for Google to pay researchers and to not have some ownership over the process or outcome in some manner, in fact, it's unreasonable to contemplate otherwise. Google was exceedingly gracious by sponsoring the work and having it make public in the first place. The demands made of the researchers in question were quite minor, and completely appropriate, and frankly immaterial to the thrust of concerns anyhow. To boot, accusations of 'racism' are vicious and repulsive. If researchers want to be completely independent in the terms they might expect in academia - that's entirely understandable - perfectly fine - but they'll have to find jobs elsewhere. Google has a Search Engine and bunch of other products, and to suggest that their major investment in research should entitle them to some kind of fair parameterize of the process is very reasonable. To remedy the situation, and an obvious failure on Google's part, they should spend some time thinking about where that line is drawn, and what kind of expectations should be in place. In retrospect, it seems like a management failure for there to have been any misunderstanding on that front. But the point is -> there is a line. Researchers that don't want to with those parameters can make the choice not to. That's why we have both private and publicly funded research.

Aunche 6y ago

How do you know that the publication wasn't pulled because they genuinely thought it didn't meet their quality standards? When this happens at Microsoft research, the author makes a few revisions and moves on rather than accuse Microsoft of racism.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Gebru and Mitchell were both previously employed by MSR in the same context without issue. Google didn't allow the team to make revisions. They stated the paper couldn't be published, period. The difference here is very clearly the management, not the researchers.
- tryonenow 6y ago
  Timnit went on a woke shaming crusade against google and her management. She embodied the toxic, progressive, self-serving, sanctimonious entryism that has infested so many of our institutions, and they were right to get rid of her.
- Rule35 6y ago
  The paper was submitted late. Because of this, and probably previous actions, there was a special go/no-go review instead of a weeks-long back and forth. If the paper was good it could go through the process and be ready for the next conference. Nobody is seriously suggesting that those words were axed forever.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    This is factually inaccurate in a variety of ways. > The paper was submitted late. This is not true. The paper was submitted for internal review with about the median amount of notice. The normal internal review process was and is usually very quick, it is not normally a weeks-long back and forth. Importantly, the paper actually passed the normal review process before being submitted to the conference. > there was a special go/no-go review It's unclear to what extent the special review was a go/no-go review. It may have been. The review however was not due to the paper being submitted late. As far as I know the special review was actually only done retroactively, after the paper had been submitted externally and approved by the normal internal process. > If the paper was good it could go through the process and be ready for the next conference. Even after submission for conference review, there was ample time for back and forth and review internally. Timnit asked if there was feedback she could incorporate into the paper, as even after the paper was submitted to the conference, they could revise it. Google's response was initially to not provide any specific feedback, and then to say that the feedback could not be addressed, the paper could only be unsubmitted. > Nobody is seriously suggesting that those words were axed forever. Actually yes, that appears to be precisely what happened.