Re:We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google
by throwaway74453 on Saturday December 05, 2020 @11:18AM
(#25315625)
Typically this is not something you worry about too much. You work on a research project, you talk to people around you, your research manager and everyone around you pretty openly, and if something was going very wrong, you'd likely know because someone would have told you along the way. So by the time you are submitting for internal review, the expectation is that you will almost certainly pass, but typically the reviewers tale their job pretty seriously (and so did I when I served as one) and spent a week or two reading through your paper in their "spare" time and writing a comment on the science, the method, the conclusions etc. The not-leaking-secrets part is certainly there, but that's the lowest bar to pass, so one rarely worries about it practically if one works on public datasets and doing fundamental science.
My experience might be different from what Dr Gebru was going through since I never rubbed against anything that could have been considered company secret. My work was entirely academic and I never felt that I was restricted in any way in the questions that I could ask or the papers I could write. That is likely very different when you are criticizing a product, using internal data etc, which might have been the case with her. It also seems that she was in no way diplomatic about her actions.
When you do fundamental research there, it's as free or possibly even freer than standard academic institutions. As I said, I personally never felt any implicit let alone explicit forces telling what to work on / what to avoid.
Re:We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google
by remote_phone on Saturday December 05, 2020 @10:38AM
(#25315301)
The fact is that you’re wrong. There is an thorough internal review process. It’s not just a rubber stamp. So please stop spreading misinformation. What Dr. Gebru went through was standard.
The point of the scientific process is to be allowed to fail and to be mistaken. And the paper was pretty bland. Sure, she didn’t namedrop all relevant research over the last decade, but why demand a retraction? Especially when the reviewers posted on Reddit that there was a big edit window to make revisions. Adding a few more cites seems like “oh, why not throw in X?” then you both go out to lunch / email an updated version later that day. A retraction is basically “your last few months have been wasted,” right? I’d probably be upset too.
Thanks again for the datapoint about the 3 day window. It seems rather selective, but that’s standard for any bigco. I’m just having a hard time stomaching the idea that your ideas need to pass through some anonymous internal review panel where you don’t even know who’s judging you. Is that really what it’s like to be there? Seems strange.