I am reluctant to accuse Jeff Dean of bad faith, but this argument doesn't scan. I've been on the inside of an AI team during a crisis and then seen how senior management spun details to obfuscate critical details to avoid responsibility. Dean is slandering Gebru in a manner that will make it easier to dismiss her work and the work of other AI ethicists (especially women and bipoc) in the future. He and Google are actually themselves guilty of a lacking rigor (i.e. ethical rigor). Worst of all, I expect that racists inside Google and the wider industry will utilize this argumentative structure in the service of neutralizing ethicists and bipoc in the future. This is truly despicable. I used to be a great admirer of Jeff Dean.
Given the way the US oscillates between administrations with oppressive tendencies and administrations which are at best squeamish when they violate international human rights laws, to me this just sounds like a skunkworks project.
> A former Facebook engineer once said (and he’s been quoted a thousand times over): "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click on ads." I spoke to some of those best minds: economists employed and formerly employed by the most powerful companies in Silicon Valley...
Not to be a jerk, but almost none of the best minds in SV or of my generation are economists.
Established outlets for real business journalism were included on the firm's rate card, including claims they could get stories onto Reuters for $8,360 and the Financial Times for about $50k. Also, lesser known, web-only portals were offered for less than $200. There are fewer and fewer watchdogs (journalists are almost like proto regulators) and some folks are taking advantage of the gap/asymmetry. I know more opportunities are created if you're willing to bend the rules a little. I'd be really interested in how other folks are interpreting these sorts of developments.
recently saw a tweet by an academic (political) economist who proposed "you are not a real empirical social scientist unless you have published a null results paper." science cannot advance without them, but an individual cannot build career on them.
You’re right. Thanks for this comment. It’s really helpful. I’m still wondering what the factors are that created this gap. If financial institutions aren’t losing confidence in each other or the assets that are been posting as collateral, why is there a cash shortage in the overnight market?
I guess that's a fair point. Sorry for oversimplified explanation. So, to attempt to improve on your further clarification: technically it is $75b per night created and destroyed each morning. And 3 separate cycles of $30b will be created for 2 weeks and then destroyed. Therefore $90b injected for 2-weeks then destroyed. Point is this is being injected to help banks cover their overnight exposures with the hope that they won't need the help anymore after Oct 10.
Wow this is not good. Repo market is the market of overnight debt between banks. Banks lend money to each other to cover their collateral needs/exposures at the end of each day. If banks lose confidence in each other, they start demanding more collateral from each other in the overnight market, which means the overnight rate goes up. The NYFed is trying to keep interest rates down and is having trouble doing it. As a result, it's having to take some extraordinary measures to the tune of injecting $100b into banks, every night, for the next month. They are basically trying to ensure that no bank gets caught with it's shirt off, while the banks are signaling that they think their peers might be naked.
So much wrong about this listing and company that I feel relieved to hear they are delaying their IPO. The corporate structure defied reason as did the concentration of voting power in their CEO, aside from the self-dealing and other ethical lapses which were apparent. I still don't know why this business is considered a technology play.
What about the issues posed for idealist entrepreneurs... ?One does not want to endorse a malfunctioning system, but working within the existing patent regime, seeking its protections, and enduring the legal costs that it imposes seem more than just de rigueur. Patent attorneys are absurdly expensive, but they can prevent months of waste in development. But maybe what I'm saying is just prospect theory run-amok. I only have the data of my own experience.