Facebook AI Research Expands with New Academic Collaborations(code.fb.com)
code.fb.com
Facebook AI Research Expands with New Academic Collaborations
https://code.fb.com/ai-research/facebook-ai-research-expands-with-new-academic-collaborations/
87 comments
> Much less, if any, grant writing.
I don't know how it compares in software, I worked for a professor in undergrad who was in microelectronics. I was astonished at how much of their time was taken up by grant writing and applying for funding. The pressure for research professors to support their position was immense.
There's a lot of reasons to hate FB, a lot of reasons to be wary of what comes out of their research. But to castigate researchers that cash-spewing tech titans create a better environment and experience for researchers than the public and universities feels a bit asinine. I've known too many starving grad students, post docs, and non-tenure professors to prefer people subject themselves to the system we have rather than what a company like FB wants to provide.
I don't know how it compares in software, I worked for a professor in undergrad who was in microelectronics. I was astonished at how much of their time was taken up by grant writing and applying for funding. The pressure for research professors to support their position was immense.
There's a lot of reasons to hate FB, a lot of reasons to be wary of what comes out of their research. But to castigate researchers that cash-spewing tech titans create a better environment and experience for researchers than the public and universities feels a bit asinine. I've known too many starving grad students, post docs, and non-tenure professors to prefer people subject themselves to the system we have rather than what a company like FB wants to provide.
A couple notes:
1. Industry funding comes with its own set of hassles. And overhead is still a thing for industry funding - sometimes the overhead rate is less, but there's been a lot more pushback against this from universities (which I actually think is quite fair).
2. Being able to buy out teaching loads is a function of funding, not necessarily this funding
3. In many institutions, salaries are fixed - what this does is cover a percentage of your salary you don't have to cover from other mechanisms, or let you buy out teaching, as you note. It would be interesting to know if the dual FAIR appointments work like that or not.
While private funding is awesome, and these labs are in a very good position, it should be noted that in most cases in my experience between NSF/NIH-style funding and an industry grant, the government grants last longer, are more flexible, and less of a hassle administratively.
1. Industry funding comes with its own set of hassles. And overhead is still a thing for industry funding - sometimes the overhead rate is less, but there's been a lot more pushback against this from universities (which I actually think is quite fair).
2. Being able to buy out teaching loads is a function of funding, not necessarily this funding
3. In many institutions, salaries are fixed - what this does is cover a percentage of your salary you don't have to cover from other mechanisms, or let you buy out teaching, as you note. It would be interesting to know if the dual FAIR appointments work like that or not.
While private funding is awesome, and these labs are in a very good position, it should be noted that in most cases in my experience between NSF/NIH-style funding and an industry grant, the government grants last longer, are more flexible, and less of a hassle administratively.
While all of what you say is correct for grants given to universities by industry, this isn't in the same class of activity. These professors are becoming FB employees, while still retaining their professorships. Some aren't even located at the same location as their university for 7 months of the year. Its almost like a yearly sabbatical with funding for your lab and far more resources.
[deleted]
Your list seems pretty complete, but I wonder which items are the most important. It might be counterintuitive.
For instance, I assume that grant writing is such a hassle, the average person would accept just to get out of writing grants. But the guys and gals that they picked up are at the top of their field. Would they also have the same constraints? Seems like they would have higher hit rates, less teaching and so forth.
I think the ability to launch the careers of their grad students, get them hired etc might be at the top, but I am just guessing.
For instance, I assume that grant writing is such a hassle, the average person would accept just to get out of writing grants. But the guys and gals that they picked up are at the top of their field. Would they also have the same constraints? Seems like they would have higher hit rates, less teaching and so forth.
I think the ability to launch the careers of their grad students, get them hired etc might be at the top, but I am just guessing.
I'm not in CS research, but even 'top labs' can struggle to get government funding from the NIH/NSF. I worked at a lab that consistently publishes in Nature/Science, a few times front cover, and gets very good PR. It's a running joke that we've never gotten NIH funding despite translating our research to people several times. Majority of our funding comes from 3rd party private companies and DARPA, which people might find objectionable despite being a govt. agency.
There is no free lunch in raising money for research.
There is no free lunch in raising money for research.
I understand the call of money but I cannot help but feel very negatively towards academics doing this with facebook of all organisations. After recent events, they cannot pretend not to know the impact and damage their work may have here. Excusing yourself with "I am just a researcher, I don't have anything to do with how my work is used" is just not good enough any more.
I would categorically reject any collaborations with FB as an academic in ML.
I would categorically reject any collaborations with FB as an academic in ML.
Completely agree with this.
I see Facebook as the least ethical, and least useful from a civilization standpoint of all the big tech firms.
Google is driven by the same ad-clicking incentives, but the one-tricky pony has been developing other extremely societally useful tech, like self-driving cars and other moonshot projects.
Apple and Microsoft sell products, they do not make users the product (on the whole). Together they pioneered computing revolutions, and I'm confident history will judge them for making a positive contribution (on the whole).
Amazon is a leviathan whose societal value I find more difficult to classify, but I genuinely derive lots of value from their service personally. It's good for my lifestyle.
Facebook on the other hand, is a waste of my time, mental energy and a drain on society. As an academic, how can you turn your mind to furthering its goals?
I see Facebook as the least ethical, and least useful from a civilization standpoint of all the big tech firms.
Google is driven by the same ad-clicking incentives, but the one-tricky pony has been developing other extremely societally useful tech, like self-driving cars and other moonshot projects.
Apple and Microsoft sell products, they do not make users the product (on the whole). Together they pioneered computing revolutions, and I'm confident history will judge them for making a positive contribution (on the whole).
Amazon is a leviathan whose societal value I find more difficult to classify, but I genuinely derive lots of value from their service personally. It's good for my lifestyle.
Facebook on the other hand, is a waste of my time, mental energy and a drain on society. As an academic, how can you turn your mind to furthering its goals?
Even if Facebook were completely evil, why not take their money? They will benefit from your research just as much even if you don't take it, because you're publishing it. Are you concerned that Facebook is telling the scientists what to work on?
Our products aren't perfect, and we understand that we have a lot of work to do.
However, the fundamental purpose of our products is to allow people to efficiently communicate with each other. Hard for me to square that with "drain on society." I have many friends who, via Facebook, found a connection that was life changing: from finding a job, a spouse, to a community to deal with the loss of a loved one or support after being diagnosed with a terminal illness.
One of the things that draws AI researchers to come work at Facebook is the opportunity to see their work make a positive impact on billions of people around the world.
The research done by FAIR is helping us do things like deliver billions of translations a day, provide automatic photo captions for people who are visually impaired, and help bring blood donors and people in need together. It also helps us spot when someone is expressing thoughts about self-harm so we can alert first responders.
But we also believe there's even more we can do to help bring the world closer together, to give people a voice, and to open up new opportunities for everyone. AI is a key part of that and we believe pretty deeply in the power of open research to help not just us but the whole industry.
However, the fundamental purpose of our products is to allow people to efficiently communicate with each other. Hard for me to square that with "drain on society." I have many friends who, via Facebook, found a connection that was life changing: from finding a job, a spouse, to a community to deal with the loss of a loved one or support after being diagnosed with a terminal illness.
One of the things that draws AI researchers to come work at Facebook is the opportunity to see their work make a positive impact on billions of people around the world.
The research done by FAIR is helping us do things like deliver billions of translations a day, provide automatic photo captions for people who are visually impaired, and help bring blood donors and people in need together. It also helps us spot when someone is expressing thoughts about self-harm so we can alert first responders.
But we also believe there's even more we can do to help bring the world closer together, to give people a voice, and to open up new opportunities for everyone. AI is a key part of that and we believe pretty deeply in the power of open research to help not just us but the whole industry.
> The research done by FAIR is helping us do things like deliver billions of translations a day, etc...
All for the purpose of increasing buy-in to an increasingly Orwellian digital surveillance regime.
> But we also believe there's even more we can do to help bring the world closer together...
What brings people closer together is real human interaction and connection. Face to face communication with visible emotion. Vulnerability. FB's video chat is the only thing serving that interest, but that's better served elsewhere with less tracking. Posts that broadcast one-way to an invisible audience are inhuman. Filter bubbles are toxic. Widespread use of FB is cancerous on the social fabric of society.
All for the purpose of increasing buy-in to an increasingly Orwellian digital surveillance regime.
> But we also believe there's even more we can do to help bring the world closer together...
What brings people closer together is real human interaction and connection. Face to face communication with visible emotion. Vulnerability. FB's video chat is the only thing serving that interest, but that's better served elsewhere with less tracking. Posts that broadcast one-way to an invisible audience are inhuman. Filter bubbles are toxic. Widespread use of FB is cancerous on the social fabric of society.
This post kind of reminded me of one of those drug commercials with old people happily skipping hand-in-hand through a field of flowers. The only difference is that you forgot to quickly list the many terrible side effects of your product at the end.
Tell your PR team the appeal to emotion was a nice touch. If I didn't know anything about your company I might have even been able to get through it without feeling absolutely nauseated.
> the fundamental purpose of our products is to allow people to efficiently communicate with each other
No, the fundamental purpose of your products is to efficiently surveil, profile and manipulate your users on behalf of your customers.
> It also helps us spot when someone is expressing thoughts about self-harm so we can alert first responders
What happens when those first responders bust someone's door down and your "helpful" feature essentially becomes algorithmic swatting?
On a semi-related note, did you guys ever figure out how many of the hundreds of thousands of people you enrolled in an emotional manipulation study without their consent ended up killing themselves as a result? It's a given that the figure isn't zero across that number of people.
Tell your PR team the appeal to emotion was a nice touch. If I didn't know anything about your company I might have even been able to get through it without feeling absolutely nauseated.
> the fundamental purpose of our products is to allow people to efficiently communicate with each other
No, the fundamental purpose of your products is to efficiently surveil, profile and manipulate your users on behalf of your customers.
> It also helps us spot when someone is expressing thoughts about self-harm so we can alert first responders
What happens when those first responders bust someone's door down and your "helpful" feature essentially becomes algorithmic swatting?
On a semi-related note, did you guys ever figure out how many of the hundreds of thousands of people you enrolled in an emotional manipulation study without their consent ended up killing themselves as a result? It's a given that the figure isn't zero across that number of people.
All of these goals are positive. I also assume that's all of the goals that you focus on.
But it's an abuse of power to only look at one side of the equation.
Companies are run by people, and at the end of the day, no person would want to dump their money into a technology that couldn't yield any financial gains. Where do all the large companies get most of their revenue from? From figuring out how to trigger dopamine to be released into our brains, and we're starting to see the negative effects it's having on people.
Also, you aren't giving people voices. You're opening up a door to a world where they have no control over. In their outrage, and futility, they focus more and more time trying to fix something that doesn't exist.
But it's an abuse of power to only look at one side of the equation.
Companies are run by people, and at the end of the day, no person would want to dump their money into a technology that couldn't yield any financial gains. Where do all the large companies get most of their revenue from? From figuring out how to trigger dopamine to be released into our brains, and we're starting to see the negative effects it's having on people.
Also, you aren't giving people voices. You're opening up a door to a world where they have no control over. In their outrage, and futility, they focus more and more time trying to fix something that doesn't exist.
Is this what you tell yourself in order to sleep at night? From the perspective of an external observer, this talk of "making the world more open and connected (and making billions in the process)" seems shockingly disconnected from the reality of the damage that FB is causing in America and in the world.
You talk about impact. There's no doubt FB is making a big impact. Unfortunately, it's overwhelmingly destructive impact. As someone in position to change that, it would be great for you not to dismiss out of hand the valid concerns of the people in this thread. Personally, it's because of replies like this (in particular zuck's attitude) that I have zero confidence in FB's potential to fix its products in the future. Bye bye democracy I guess.
One day you may be held responsible for your impact on the world. I hope the talk about making the world a better place will work out then.
You talk about impact. There's no doubt FB is making a big impact. Unfortunately, it's overwhelmingly destructive impact. As someone in position to change that, it would be great for you not to dismiss out of hand the valid concerns of the people in this thread. Personally, it's because of replies like this (in particular zuck's attitude) that I have zero confidence in FB's potential to fix its products in the future. Bye bye democracy I guess.
One day you may be held responsible for your impact on the world. I hope the talk about making the world a better place will work out then.
[deleted]
That might be true, but don't confuse FAIR (their DL research lab) with FB. FAIR employs good people doing interesting and useful research. They promoted pytorch as a framework, and it is perhaps the best framework for non industrial applications.
On a parallel line of thought, I prefer FB's React to Google's Angular. In both React and Pytorch I see the same elegant design. TensorFlow and Angular on the other part are unnecessarily complicated.
On a parallel line of thought, I prefer FB's React to Google's Angular. In both React and Pytorch I see the same elegant design. TensorFlow and Angular on the other part are unnecessarily complicated.
FAIR is part of FB. The reason why FB invests billions of dollars into FAIR is because it supports its business model and its democracy-wrecking product. FAIR researchers are complicit in the societal damage perpetrated by FB. They're cashing the (multi-million $) checks, and in exchange they work on making FB more powerful, by giving it better AI.
When you talk to these guys (they're almost all guys), you realize they're fully aware of what they're doing, and in the back of their minds they know FB is evil. They just like the money too much.
This is 100% about money trumping conscience. FAIR researchers may be millionaires, but they're ethically challenged. I wouldn't trade place with them. These people disgust me.
When you talk to these guys (they're almost all guys), you realize they're fully aware of what they're doing, and in the back of their minds they know FB is evil. They just like the money too much.
This is 100% about money trumping conscience. FAIR researchers may be millionaires, but they're ethically challenged. I wouldn't trade place with them. These people disgust me.
At that level, they could be making the same money at any of the other tech companies, with the same freedom and same caliber of coworkers.
I highly doubt most of them believe that FB and the work they’re doing is evil. They would have no incentive to work there if they did.
I highly doubt most of them believe that FB and the work they’re doing is evil. They would have no incentive to work there if they did.
The $$ they can get from anywhere else in industry given how hot research level ML experience is (and how scarce this talent is). I imagine the appeal of FAIR is much more about the academic freedom. But sure the $$ doesnt hurt.
> given how hot research level ML experience is
Interestingly the head of the Pittsburgh lab here isn't even an ML researcher -- she is primarily known for her motion capture work and for running Disney Research.
Interestingly the head of the Pittsburgh lab here isn't even an ML researcher -- she is primarily known for her motion capture work and for running Disney Research.
[deleted]
I agree with the general principle, expressed fairly crudely, that - good, innovative things (React) can come out of bad places (Facebook, in my opinion).
That's historically true of lots of research innovation though.
War (generally accepted as bad thing!) has advanced technology and civilization repeatedly.
At least the scientists aiding war (on average) had some awareness that killing people is clearly not a good thing, and at absolute best a necessary evil. Can the same be said of the people at Facebook?
The culture of their management is to be in denial about how damaging their service is to the mental health of individuals and society.
That's historically true of lots of research innovation though.
War (generally accepted as bad thing!) has advanced technology and civilization repeatedly.
At least the scientists aiding war (on average) had some awareness that killing people is clearly not a good thing, and at absolute best a necessary evil. Can the same be said of the people at Facebook?
The culture of their management is to be in denial about how damaging their service is to the mental health of individuals and society.
History will also judge Alphabet with a positive mindset (T&C apply!). Google did to web what Apple,MS did to computing. Google files patents but doesn't extract royalty from it unlike MS. I think next 10 years will be really crucial to Alphabet( not talking about Google here). The work Calico, Verily,Loon, Dandelion Energy are doing takes time to create impact. I think Google, Calico,Verily are going to make considerable contributions to healthcare.
Fb's research in computer vision has produced works like training a neutral net on large datasets in 1 hour, instance segmentation neural nets, and many more, and made the code and research public with nonrestrictive licenses. These are pushing the state of art! Check out the work yourself and then come back and criticize these scientists if you feel that their work is a net negative on the world.
Oh I am sure they add value.
The question as you so rightly point out is whether there is a net value added.
If we took their AI contributions and JS frameworks on one side of the equation, do you really think it balances the other side of the equation?
On that right side lies encouraging general disinformation leading to broken elections and even aiding genocide. Academic studies on happiness show using Facebook and Instagram correlates with poor mental health; that research has been replicated.
What product actively damages those that consume it?
Facebook is the digital equivalent of the Tobacco industry; good business that's bad for people.
The question as you so rightly point out is whether there is a net value added.
If we took their AI contributions and JS frameworks on one side of the equation, do you really think it balances the other side of the equation?
On that right side lies encouraging general disinformation leading to broken elections and even aiding genocide. Academic studies on happiness show using Facebook and Instagram correlates with poor mental health; that research has been replicated.
What product actively damages those that consume it?
Facebook is the digital equivalent of the Tobacco industry; good business that's bad for people.
Honestly at this point it is also ethically "controverse" to work for facebook in any position.
Obviously, in my personal opinion and I can understand that a lot of people don't care about it
Obviously, in my personal opinion and I can understand that a lot of people don't care about it
Heck, you could even go as far as saying that Facebook is ethically "challenged".
I think you can go even farther, to, "intentionally malicious".
Mark hasn't taken back his comments about his users being "dumb fucks" for "trust[ing]" him, as far as I know, although he has apparently said that he regrets saying it[0].
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...
Source: research and I've asked FB myself
Mark hasn't taken back his comments about his users being "dumb fucks" for "trust[ing]" him, as far as I know, although he has apparently said that he regrets saying it[0].
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...
Source: research and I've asked FB myself
> he has apparently said that he regrets saying it
What's the difference between this and taking it back?
What's the difference between this and taking it back?
One could still think it, but regret that they said it aloud/sent it as a text message, such that others heard/read it.
[deleted]
Well said, and totally agree. They've had too many whoopsie moments and seem entrenched in not learning or changing what is fundamentally broken in their management and business model. They have no legitimate place in research or academia.
It's a bit of a poisoned grail, though. On the one hand, you're selling your soul. On the other hand, they have data beyond your wildest dreams and you can use it all for anything as long as it might make money.
Would you take that offer? Would I? Probably not. But I can see the appeal, and plenty of people wouldn't hesitate.
Would you take that offer? Would I? Probably not. But I can see the appeal, and plenty of people wouldn't hesitate.
But I can see the appeal, and plenty of people wouldn't hesitate.
It will keep happening until these companies are a black mark on your CV, like say a tobacco company might be. Will people be so eager if it means they will be shunned by the wider research and engineering communities?
It will keep happening until these companies are a black mark on your CV, like say a tobacco company might be. Will people be so eager if it means they will be shunned by the wider research and engineering communities?
FB and Google are the only ones pushing the industry forward. The huge amount of data and computing power is what brings these researchers, its not all about money. In the long run the scientific advancements from these companies is a much higher positive than the negatives they have in the present.
Any researcher in this area worth their salt can easily get cloud credit grants and collaborations from Google, Microsoft, Amazon. I pose if you go to Facebook, it's very much about money.
[deleted]
What actions by Facebook do you see as particularly heinous above what's done at Google?
Can't speak for the parent but for one thing I don't recall reading about Google messing with 600,000 users’ emotions without their knowledge.
But can they get the huge volumes of data they have tagged out? The real time pipelines and internal tools? The community of people they will be working with?
>>> FB and Google are the only ones pushing the industry forward. The huge amount of data and computing power is what brings these researchers, its not all about money. In the long run the scientific advancements from these companies is a much higher positive than the negatives they have in the present.
> But can they get the huge volumes of data they have tagged out? The real time pipelines and internal tools? The community of people they will be working with?
It's highly problematic when a researcher pushes ethics aside in order to gain access to data and chase "long run ... scientific advancements."
> But can they get the huge volumes of data they have tagged out? The real time pipelines and internal tools? The community of people they will be working with?
It's highly problematic when a researcher pushes ethics aside in order to gain access to data and chase "long run ... scientific advancements."
the huge volumes of data they have
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
This is incorrect, in my opinion. FB and Google are where capital is currently concentrated in the software industry; therefore, they are able to hire a lot of the top software talent out there. This talent is responsible for pushing the industry forward, and it often does so in a manner that is largely company-agnostic. This is why we get React help pages telling us to use Enzyme from AirBnb for running tests - because the work is being done by software developers who are building general infrastructure for the web, and who would probably end up doing the same basic work regardless of who was paying their salaries.
It's best to think of Silicon Valley as two entities: a mass of technology workers who build software, and a financial extraction function that attempts to extract value from the work they do.
It's best to think of Silicon Valley as two entities: a mass of technology workers who build software, and a financial extraction function that attempts to extract value from the work they do.
In the long run the scientific advancements from these companies is a much higher positive than the negatives they have in the present.
That’s really the main question, isn’t it?
That’s really the main question, isn’t it?
tell that to the royhinga who were betrayed by facebook and subsequently killed.
i'll be waiting for the scientific advancements to be useful to the public. so far they've increased rates of depression, anxiety, etc while enabling totalitarianism.
i'll be waiting for the scientific advancements to be useful to the public. so far they've increased rates of depression, anxiety, etc while enabling totalitarianism.
How is IP handled in this situation? Especially given the recent discussion [1] on HN about how the recently announced DeepMind Patent Portfolio could be a problem, how is it that state employees (Washington, California) are "co-employed" by an organization to do _exactly_ the research that their home universities work on ? Who owns the IP in this case? Are these sorts of agreements FOIA-able?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17266951
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17266951
> how is it that state employees (Washington, California) are "co-employed" by an organization to do _exactly_ the research that their home universities work on
They will work part-time for the university, and part-time for Facebook. I don't see why that's so shocking? Presumably the university only funds them part-time for part-time work, so it's not like they're not getting what they're paying for if that's what you're asking. This is a very conventional set up for academics.
They will work part-time for the university, and part-time for Facebook. I don't see why that's so shocking? Presumably the university only funds them part-time for part-time work, so it's not like they're not getting what they're paying for if that's what you're asking. This is a very conventional set up for academics.
Most employer agreements have fairly draconian claims around IP. And I believe that many universities require their faculty to run consulting, etc. gigs through their legal teams, and the university gets a "right of first refusal" of sorts on the generated IP. Many academics get around this by claiming that they are doing research X at company (more applied, etc.) and research Y at the university (more theory, technically different projects under different grants). But with ML it seems like it would be harder. Regardless, I'd love to figure out if we can get these agreements through freedom of information act requests, to shed light on what state-employees are doing.
Yeah, at my university partnerships between academia and industry have very complex IP terms that depend on the scope of work, how much of it involves novel research, etc.
And there, there's the clarity of "I'm an employee of the university". With dual appointments...the agreement has to be complex. Either that, or really draconian based on Facebook throwing it's weight around and saying "Accept this, or we'll find another university that will."
And there, there's the clarity of "I'm an employee of the university". With dual appointments...the agreement has to be complex. Either that, or really draconian based on Facebook throwing it's weight around and saying "Accept this, or we'll find another university that will."
[deleted]
A related quote from this fascinating interview with Jonathan Tow (media researcher)[1] on FB research:
> Often, these companies [like FB] are open to research partnerships and things, but it’s always on their terms. If you do research with them, you’re dealing with IP issues, you’re signing over the rights to the research. It has to be reviewed completely and vetted by their legal process. They often handpick researchers that help them and help their purpose and help their cause — they maybe throw in some sprinkles of criticism. I understand why they would be hesitant to want to work with people like me.
[1] http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/news-in-a-disintegrating-re...
> Often, these companies [like FB] are open to research partnerships and things, but it’s always on their terms. If you do research with them, you’re dealing with IP issues, you’re signing over the rights to the research. It has to be reviewed completely and vetted by their legal process. They often handpick researchers that help them and help their purpose and help their cause — they maybe throw in some sprinkles of criticism. I understand why they would be hesitant to want to work with people like me.
[1] http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/news-in-a-disintegrating-re...
I think Facebook hate is clouding out reasonability in this thread. E.g., there's even a comment asserting that people who collaborate with facebook (a.k.a., Jessica Hodgins, Andrea Vedaldi, and Jitendra Malik) are "not worth their salt" (?!?!?!).
IDK. Maybe -- just possibly -- there do exist researchers who have their choice of funding spigots and are choosing to work with Facebook. Either that or HN has some damn high standards for what it means to be "worth their salt".
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with industry collaboration, even when it involves companies whose impact on the world you might not like. The big oil companies are, unlike FB, an actual existential threat to humanity. But I wouldn't fault renewable energy researchers for taking research dollars from those companies.
The question is: will the funded research agendas push science forward in the direction it was headed anyways, or will this money distort the type of research being done?
In any case, in a week we'll be back to our regular programming bemoaning the fall of the industry research lab and the paltry salaries offered to phd students...
IDK. Maybe -- just possibly -- there do exist researchers who have their choice of funding spigots and are choosing to work with Facebook. Either that or HN has some damn high standards for what it means to be "worth their salt".
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with industry collaboration, even when it involves companies whose impact on the world you might not like. The big oil companies are, unlike FB, an actual existential threat to humanity. But I wouldn't fault renewable energy researchers for taking research dollars from those companies.
The question is: will the funded research agendas push science forward in the direction it was headed anyways, or will this money distort the type of research being done?
In any case, in a week we'll be back to our regular programming bemoaning the fall of the industry research lab and the paltry salaries offered to phd students...
You are referring to my comment about 'worth their salt' in a gross misreading. I said anyone worth their salt has other choices, so going to FB is a deliberate choice on these professors.
te_chris(3)
An important aspect in any research arrangement is PROTECT THE STUDENTS. Academic research is likely to have many student assistants. The students should be able to publish their results in a timely manner. Students will benefit from exposure to researchers and resources in industry. And potentially lucrative internships.
My alma mater Stanford had a bumpy ride in the 1980s: over clingy patent policy, faculty startups not allowing publications. Lawsuits ensued. Ut by the time dot.com began the next decade it was much smoother, e.g. the Yahoos and Googles.
And this not just comp-sci, but biotech, oil&gas, aero engineering too.
What level are these professors being hired at within Facebook? What sort of base salaries, stock options do they command? Any idea on total compensation numbers here?
With them being part-time professors what are their university salaries like?
In total compensation between industry and university I'd imagine this would be a good deal.
Lastly, how does recruiting work here? I assume they don’t make these people go through 5-6 algorithmic interview rounds.
With them being part-time professors what are their university salaries like?
In total compensation between industry and university I'd imagine this would be a good deal.
Lastly, how does recruiting work here? I assume they don’t make these people go through 5-6 algorithmic interview rounds.
Total compensation: Definitely a wide range, but a few hundred K would be the median.
Recruiting: one of my labmates flat out refused to do algorithmic interviews for a research position and the company still gave him an offer. Your projects, papers, and ability to demonstrate your understanding of research topics are far more important then your ability to solve a small, defined problem in 45 minutes.
I assume there is a distinction between software engineering and research applicants in terms of their interviews at the Big 4s? I know two people with PhDs that were given algorithmic questions and had to go through the same process as regular software developers (this was at the same Big 4 company). The only exception is one had expertise in ML and during one of his interviews they brought in a ML expert and interviewed them on their dissertation, in addition to their 4-5 algorithmic interviews. Both of these people were interviewing for software developer positions despite having expertise in research. Wasn't sure if the research interviews would be different. Good on your lab mate.
I interviewed for a research position at Facebook reality labs, and it was the same process as an interview for an academic job. Give an hour talk about your research, meet with 6 researchers in hour chunks for the rest of the day. The process was similar for my previous industry research job as well. I can't speak to Facebook's other research arms or Google.
Good to know. So you you weren't asked any algorithmic leetcode-style questions or questions testing that you have basic knowledge of your field (e.g. tell me what a random forest is)? Doesn't sound like it. It was more focused on your research?
There weren't any whiteboard algorithm questions, no.
> questions testing that you have basic knowledge of your field
Not directly, but in discussing my research the interviewers drilled down into the contents of my papers, etc.
> questions testing that you have basic knowledge of your field
Not directly, but in discussing my research the interviewers drilled down into the contents of my papers, etc.
Okay, thanks.
I see similarities here with pharma and medical research. Conflicts of interest are endemic there, and they will be here, too, but this sort of sponsorship is inevitable. What can be done? In the case of pharma, I'm OK with them sponsoring peer reviewed, academic research, as long as policies are in place to make it immediately obvious where the money is coming from when I read the literature.
While I dislike FB, I don't blame researchers/profs for joining FB when the numerous advantages for joining them dwarf what you could get at a lot of other institutions.
Reminds me of how on the one hand it sucks that certain talented engineers/designers work for ad-driven companies, but at the end of the day the compensation is simply on another level compared to working for more benevolent causes.
Reminds me of how on the one hand it sucks that certain talented engineers/designers work for ad-driven companies, but at the end of the day the compensation is simply on another level compared to working for more benevolent causes.
cool, even better ads.
[deleted]
As usual FB and other companies only collaborates with the "elite/Ivy League" schools. IMHO there are plenty of great researchers at non-elite schools and it would have been great if FB would start collaborating with those to reduce this vast concentration of academic research that has been happening for the past decade.
It's a bit chicken-and-egg. These collaborators are also in cities where FB already has offices that they can lead teams out of. Of course, these offices were started because of the prestigious schools that were already there.
Half the schools on the list are publics, and none of them are Ivies.
How does being a public school mean a college cannot be elite? Pretty sure his point is these schools are elite within this field, and people from lesser known schools (not just public) are rarely given these chances.
The collab with McGill and U Montreal I believe.
U Montreal has the largest AI program going.
U Montreal has the largest AI program going.
cujo(1)
1) Much less, if any, grant writing. A standard NSF $500K 3 year grant provides a lab about $100K per year (due to university overhead). This will support 1-2 PhD students on a pittance of a stipend.
2) Less teaching (1 course once a year)
3) Computing resources that are far greater than you could get a grant for. One NVIDIA DGX-1 is about $100K. Very hard to get a grant for something like that. Companies have far greater resources than just one DGX-1
4) Access to software engineering personnel to help with research
5) Access to data, and the ability to create new datasets. Many datasets cost over $100K to make (e.g., those for semantic segmentation). Very hard to get a grant to make a dataset (I've tried)
6) Much better media relations to popularize your research
7) Bigger salary
A big part of this, in my opinion, is just that FB funds their labs. Getting government funding for a lab is difficult and frustrating and must be done continually, especially for these professors that run huge labs. NSF has a 7-15% success rate, and it can take a lot of effort to write a decent proposal. Including teaching regularly, this takes a lot of time from actual research. What these professors, I think, are negotiating is only teaching one semester a year and having a spigot of cash to fund their labs. They also gain access to massive amounts of data and computing resources.
Other companies don't seem to be as open to this arrangement as FB, but it has a lot of appeal to me (although I'm not a lover of FB).