Re:About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
by xapata on Friday December 04, 2020 @06:45PM
(#25309850)
That's not the assertion here. A good researcher should be aware of the current state of the field, and thus mention current efforts to solve a problem when discussing that problem. Regardless of who's doing the work.
Re:About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
by abeppu on Friday December 04, 2020 @06:53PM
(#25309941)
I agree with you that a researcher should be aware of current work relevant to the problem under discussion. Jeff's quoted email states that part of the issue was that Timnit's paper "ignored too much relevant research", without specifically saying whether the unmentioned relevant research was done by Google.
But the parent comment to which I responded, and which I quoted, specifically said the problem was to criticize google while working for google, and seemed to approve that this should be judged unacceptable.
> I get the impression that she wrote a hit piece on Google and published with Google's name. For me, it's correct they demand a retraction.
The "regardless of who's doing the work" part is key, and not all participants in this conversation are on the same page about it.
Re:About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
by xapata on Friday December 04, 2020 @07:00PM
(#25310018)
> not all participants in this conversation are on the same page about it.
I don't see anything contradicting, but merely failing to add the "regardless" footer. Admittedly, sometimes I read too quickly.
Re:About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
by kaitai on Friday December 04, 2020 @10:32PM
(#25311464)
That's what the peer-review process is for, though -- for the peers to suggest that their papers get cited a few more times ;)
Seriously. Choosing who to cite is a discussion and a battle. It's not done thoughtlessly.
It would seem deeply problematic for an AI ethics researcher to have the expectation that when they critique their own employer, they should mention all their work to ameliorate bias or ethics problems, but to not have a similar expectation when they're critiquing other companies. Is the point of having an ethics researcher to expand our understanding of ethical issues, or merely to aid in PR?
If a university administrator were to attempt to tell a PI not to submit a paper critical of work from another lab at the same institution, I think that would be judged as a shocking overreach. But for Google, we're not even in agreement that this behavior is a problem. It's unfortunate that we expect so little from corporations, even if those corporations are some of the main drivers of research in a field.