15 ms·
Read between the lines: "The private sector funds most global research and development, and many of the results of such work are not published in peer-reviewed
by CamelCaseName 2y ago
Read between the lines:
"The private sector funds most global research and development, and many of the results of such work are not published in peer-reviewed journals."
I read this as:
Given the option of publishing pseudocode and not publishing at all, Nature is willing to accept the first.
and
Google would likely not have published if we required full transparency, and having them publish is more beneficial. (and this paper is impactful enough that it is worth making an exemption for.)
And in my opinion:
People are asking too much of Alphabet. Alphabet could easily choose not to publish anything. To be honest, I'm shocked that they do publish.
- COGlory 2y ago>People are asking too much of Alphabet. Alphabet could easily choose not to publish anything. To be honest, I'm shocked that they do publish. Yeah, no. No one would be working at Alphabet if they didn't publish this work. Which means the work would never get done to begin with.
- CamelCaseName 2y agoPerhaps when Alphafold was just starting, but now they are the undisputed king. Would you rather publish or work on the cutting edge?
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoLook at Apple’s ML efforts which are the result of not supporting publishing cutting edge research. Or, better yet, ask Siri and you’ll get the answer.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mupuff1234 2y agoSo where else would they work?
- guyomes 2y agoIn academy for example, including the publicly funded institute mentioned in the article (European Molecular Biology Laboratory’s European Bioinformatics Institute). Also, there is a blog page on the deep mind website where they cite "millions of researcher" around the world using alphafold [1]. Some of those institutions might be happy to develop the new alphafold. On the other hand, even in academy, scientific articles are not always the best examples of open and reproducible research [2,3]. And in computer science, it is common for articles to be more focused on algorithms than on implementations. [1]: https://deepmind.google/impact/meet-the-scientists-using-alphafold/ https://deepmind.google/impact/meet-the-scientists-using-alp... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- anon84873628 2y agoJust like no one would be working at <innumerable other AI or pharmaceutical companies>. Or the rest of closed source Google? Yeah, no.
- COGlory 2y agoI'm a structural biologist and I work at an AI pharmaceutical company. Even we still publish. We publish both methodologies in peer reviewed journals, and patents.
- tedivm 2y agoAlphabet has to publish or they would lose a huge amount of their research staff. People in this industry want to publish and will work at the companies that allow it before they work at the companies that restrict it. They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it benefits them to. If they want to have those benefits they should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
- hehdhdjehehegwv 2y agoThey publish because they need external validation so people are willing to pay for it and they can retain top researchers. It’s not a gift to Nature or its readers, it’s pure self interest. Giving Google special rules flies in the face of the scientific process. Nature needs to have one, consistent set of rules, as their stamp of approval is what Google wants and they got it without giving up anything in return. This is a shameful perversion of the peer review process and the paper should be retracted.