6 ms·

Why do you think Google doesn't encourage publishing papers? Google has a very big amount of papers they publish ... as an example, https://ai.googleblog.com/20

Why do you think Google doesn't encourage publishing papers? Google has a very big amount of papers they publish ... as an example, https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/google-at-nips-2017.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/google-at-nips-2017.html

yodon 8y ago
Nearly all the authors in that list are google employees, not independent academic researchers. That blog post is about Google’s employees publishing papers on work google owns, the same sort of work that google is attempting to secure patents on. This is very different from supporting independent academic research.
- haeffin 8y ago
  Supporting independent academic research like https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-awards-2017.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-aw...?
  - yodon 8y ago
    Everything I’ve heard from academics is that the terms that come with funding from Microsoft are much better and more flexible for the academic than the terms that come with funding from Google, and there is certainly a great deal more funding available to academics from Microsoft than Google. That said, given that my point was about the absurdity in difference in responses to Microsoft’s actions and Google’s actions, I’m particularly amused(?) that here we are, in a page about Google applying for patents that would cover a tremendous amount of essential CS research, and the primary thrust of your points here seems to be “Dude! Google’s Awesome! They’re so supportive of research!” which is pretty much exactly the response I was trying to highlight. Don’t be evil was a wonderful way to start their branding. It doesn’t matter that’s not the company they are anymore, it’s still how people think of them.
    - doctorsher 8y ago
      You are trying to frame people's responses into a "Google good, Microsoft bad" response, and I do not think that is fair to them at all. They are disagreeing with your idea that Google is non-existent on the academic research front, and Microsoft is doing way more than them. And frankly, as someone in academia, this does not pass my smell test either.
      - yodon 8y ago
        I’m baffled where you get the idea that I think google is non-existent on the academic front. Yes, Apple is not-existent, but that’s certainly not something I believe or would say about google, because it’s not the case. I did say Microsoft is the #1 funder of academic research in the world, which I believe is still true and which no one seems to be challenging [edit: it looks like there is some discussion of whether Microsoft’s funding is bigger or smaller than the government’s contribution, but all within a context of Microsoft certainly being the biggest NGO funding source and possibly being the biggest overall] Again, I think it’s fascinating how in commenting on a post about google trying to file patents that would completely control the most important new field in CS, someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers is branded as calling Google “non-existent on the academic front”. This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish, so I’m going to try to back off here and say hopefully we can agree to disagree, particularly since it doesn’t sound to me like we actually disagree.
        doctorsher 8y ago
        I admit that I exaggerated with my wording that you think Google is non-existent on the academic front. It's unfortunate that your response focuses almost entirely on this one aspect, and not the message my post attempted to convey. > someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers This type of wording is unnecessary. You are declaring that you are correct, while at the same time not providing supporting evidence when requested. > This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish Welp. I am sorry this had such a negative effect on you. We can certainly agree to disagree. Cheers.
  - doctorsher 8y ago
    I was going to link to exactly the same thing. Only considering these 2017 faculty research awards, that is over $22 million awarded to academic research. Not to mention Google frequently uses the model where professors work at google for a summer / semester / year on a funded project, but are not permanent employees.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Even if it was, publishing paper is still contributing to academic research. How is contributing yourself somehow worse than just putting your stamp on other people's work?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

yodon 8y ago

Nearly all the authors in that list are google employees, not independent academic researchers. That blog post is about Google’s employees publishing papers on work google owns, the same sort of work that google is attempting to secure patents on. This is very different from supporting independent academic research.

haeffin 8y ago
Supporting independent academic research like https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-awards-2017.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/google-faculty-research-aw...?
- yodon 8y ago
  Everything I’ve heard from academics is that the terms that come with funding from Microsoft are much better and more flexible for the academic than the terms that come with funding from Google, and there is certainly a great deal more funding available to academics from Microsoft than Google. That said, given that my point was about the absurdity in difference in responses to Microsoft’s actions and Google’s actions, I’m particularly amused(?) that here we are, in a page about Google applying for patents that would cover a tremendous amount of essential CS research, and the primary thrust of your points here seems to be “Dude! Google’s Awesome! They’re so supportive of research!” which is pretty much exactly the response I was trying to highlight. Don’t be evil was a wonderful way to start their branding. It doesn’t matter that’s not the company they are anymore, it’s still how people think of them.
  - doctorsher 8y ago
    You are trying to frame people's responses into a "Google good, Microsoft bad" response, and I do not think that is fair to them at all. They are disagreeing with your idea that Google is non-existent on the academic research front, and Microsoft is doing way more than them. And frankly, as someone in academia, this does not pass my smell test either.
    - yodon 8y ago
      I’m baffled where you get the idea that I think google is non-existent on the academic front. Yes, Apple is not-existent, but that’s certainly not something I believe or would say about google, because it’s not the case. I did say Microsoft is the #1 funder of academic research in the world, which I believe is still true and which no one seems to be challenging [edit: it looks like there is some discussion of whether Microsoft’s funding is bigger or smaller than the government’s contribution, but all within a context of Microsoft certainly being the biggest NGO funding source and possibly being the biggest overall] Again, I think it’s fascinating how in commenting on a post about google trying to file patents that would completely control the most important new field in CS, someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers is branded as calling Google “non-existent on the academic front”. This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish, so I’m going to try to back off here and say hopefully we can agree to disagree, particularly since it doesn’t sound to me like we actually disagree.
      - doctorsher 8y ago
        I admit that I exaggerated with my wording that you think Google is non-existent on the academic front. It's unfortunate that your response focuses almost entirely on this one aspect, and not the message my post attempted to convey. > someone who correctly points out that Google is not #1 in funding academic researchers This type of wording is unnecessary. You are declaring that you are correct, while at the same time not providing supporting evidence when requested. > This is precisely the sort of unproductive back and forth argument that the HN software is designed to discourage and punish Welp. I am sorry this had such a negative effect on you. We can certainly agree to disagree. Cheers.
- doctorsher 8y ago
  I was going to link to exactly the same thing. Only considering these 2017 faculty research awards, that is over $22 million awarded to academic research. Not to mention Google frequently uses the model where professors work at google for a summer / semester / year on a funded project, but are not permanent employees.
ehsankia 8y ago
Even if it was, publishing paper is still contributing to academic research. How is contributing yourself somehow worse than just putting your stamp on other people's work?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]