>But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation.
Decisions in megacorporations are made in one direction, from the top on down. If this is her main point of contention, I sympathize but that's what you get for joining one of the largest corporations in the world. It seems both parties will be better off without each other. I hope her research won't suffer for it.
of course it will. The big tech companies have created networks of users and user data that is beyond anything that can be replicated in an academic or laboratory setting. By saying that it's fine for corporations to have draconian oversight over research about the systems they build, what you are saying is that these systems cannot be researched for any purposes other than to make them more profitable. That is an abdication of responsibility.
I disagree because I don't think Big N has exclusive access to the data necessary for cutting edge research. You don't need petabytes of data to train cutting edge neural networks.
It also seems she published the paper she is best known for before joining Google, suggesting academics are not submitting subpar research compared to Big N.
Unfortunately enacting change "from within" isn't always easy. It's easy to forget that Google AI still sits underneath the megacorp.