undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAshamedCaptain1y ago0 comments

If you actually look at the full quote

> [whistleblower] stated he did not have evidence to support his suspicion of fraud, that he needed to cross a much larger threshold to prove his suspicion

is exactly saying what I was saying.

But in addition, this is hearsay, "quoted" only by Google's rep. It was never actually mentioned by the whistleblower. It has exactly 0 value. Using this quote at face value is intentionally misleading no matter which way you put it. They're literally the defendants - they're basically quoting themselves.

> Seems like the "whistleblower" didn't even have that.

Before he was fired?

Also, I find it funny that for all the talk of the crisis of reproducibility, anyone would trust for a second the authors of the paper more than the attempts done by a 3rd party (and literally done by one of the most important names of the entire floorplanning academic community, to begin with). At least the EDA community has used some benchmarks that have been often used by other papers, allowing some resemblance of a comparison, and a criticism that "these ancient benchmarks do not reflect our holy ways or whatever" is a criticism that maybe I also share; but it's a hoop that everyone who has ever published any such paper (including all the big names) has had to pass in order to be published, unless apparently if you are called Google and publish in Nature.

Nature doesn't exactly have an stellar track record ensuring Google's results are verifiable ... https://retractionwatch.com/2024/05/14/nature-earns-ire-over...

Frankly, at this point I don't even know why would anyone bother with Google's paper. It feels as if they've managed to alienate the entire floorplanning academic community, and whenever I read one of Google's "responses" I see why.

0 comments

wholehog1y ago

I think the one thing we agree on is that this field desperately needs large public benchmarks that are representative of modern chip design.

> Nature doesn't exactly have an stellar track record ensuring Google's results are verifiable ... https://retractionwatch.com/2024/05/14/nature-earns-ire-over...

Google open-sourced AlphaFold-3 a week ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03708-4

Google infrastructure is weird and takes significant work to disentangle from a given project, so I'm not surprised it took them six months to open-source it.

> Before he was fired?

I don't know how long someone should expect to remain employed when making baseless allegations of scientific misconduct against his colleagues instead of doing actual work. Again, he did not have evidence to support his suspicion of fraud, and he admitted this at the time.

> most important names of the entire floorplanning academic community

If the old guard struggles with ML basics, what can the AlphaChip authors be expected to do about this? This pattern is unfortunately common when ML comes for a new field -- some researchers adapt and build, and others fail and complain (or worse, don't really even try).

> it's a hoop that everyone who has ever published any such paper (including all the big names) has had to pass in order to be published

If the hoop doesn't match what modern chip design needs, we shouldn't expect researchers to hop through it. No one is comparing Vision Transformers against AlexNet on MNIST. Meanwhile, AlphaChip is already used in production to make real layouts for real chips.

AshamedCaptainOP1y ago

> Google infrastructure is weird and takes significant work to disentangle from a given project, so I'm not surprised it took them six months to open-source it.

No, this is ridiculous. Then don't publish, damn it. But they publish first, claiming that all the data is there, claiming that their papers satisfy all the rules required for reproduceability... and only actually release the source once they're caught lying . It is not the first time it happens.

This seriously damages Google's credibility and very well deservedly so.

> I don't know how long someone should expect to remain employed when making baseless allegations of scientific misconduct against his colleagues instead of doing actual work.

My question was whether this supposed data was available to the whistleblower before he was fired or not. It is kind of important (see my first point).

> Again, he did not have evidence to support his suspicion of fraud, and he admitted this at the time.

Why are you ignoring my counterargument? Where did he admit this exactly? The only source for this quote so far is hearsay from the defendant itself in a civil lawsuit, i.e. 0 value.

> If the old guard struggles with ML basics, what can the AlphaChip authors be expected to do about this? This pattern is unfortunately common when ML comes for a new field -- some researchers adapt and build, and others fail and complain (or worse, don't really even try).

This is as much of an ad-hominem, childish and stereotyping attack as it gets, holier-than-thou attitude, and, frankly, I resent the implications. Imagine if I said "If the morons at Google struggle with chip design basics, what can we do?". Does this encourage conversation?

There is no "old guard", EDA has been using AI quite effectively since before Google was even a thing, and likely _right now_ there are more experts in RL employed by EDA companies than there are AI experts at Google entirely.

> If the hoop doesn't match what modern chip design needs, we shouldn't expect researchers to hop through it.

The difference in "needs" is nowhere near great enough yet to be worth the effort of changing it, for reasons that should be evident by now.

wholehog1y ago

> My question was whether this supposed data was available to the whistleblower before he was fired or not. It is kind of important (see my first point).

If you read the court case, you can see quite clearly that he never obtained any evidence, and simply hoped to go on a general fishing expedition.

For him, it was like the AlphaChip authors performed a magic trick. Magic is impossible, and so something must be up. Even if he doesn't know how they did it, there must surely be fraud somewhere. Did it ever occur to him that he might just be wrong?

The closest thing he had to "evidence" of his belief was his study where he says he tried AlphaChip and got worse results than SA. But even that study was flawed, and known to be flawed at the time. From "That Chip Has Sailed":

"In 2022, it was reviewed by an independent committee at Google, which determined that “the claims and conclusions in the draft are not scientifically backed by the experiments” [33] and “as the [AlphaChip] results on their original datasets were independently reproduced, this brought the [Markov et al.] RL results into question” [33]. We provided the committee with one-line scripts that generated significantly better RL results than those reported in Markov et al., outperforming their “stronger” simulated annealing baseline. We still do not know how Markov and his collaborators produced the numbers in their paper."

([33] is the sworn statement from Jon Orwant, head of the independent resolution committee.)

How large do you imagine the conspiracy is here? The method is secretly bad, but the TPU team uses it in production anyway? MediaTek built on it anyway? The TF-Agents team claimed to reproduce it, but they're actually lying? Jeff Dean put his reputation behind it but he's either fooled or lying?

Please hold off on replying further on this thread until you have read OP's linked paper. I understand you want to defend your field against the encroachment of people you perceive to be bad actors, but I believe you have things backwards.

1 more reply

negativeonehalf1y ago

> Nature doesn't exactly have an stellar track record ensuring Google's results are verifiable ... https://retractionwatch.com/2024/05/14/nature-earns-ire-over...

They open-sourced AlphaFold-3 a week ago, so I'm not sure how you can say this is part of a pattern of being overly closed: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03708-4

> Before he was fired?

I don't know how long someone should expect to remain employed when making baseless allegations of scientific misconduct against his colleagues instead of doing actual work. Again, he did not have evidence to support his suspicion of fraud, and he admitted this at the time.

I'm sorry that the "most important names of the entire floorplanning academic community" are struggling with ML basics, but it is what it is. The "Chip Has Sailed" paper makes this pretty clear. This pattern is unfortunately common when ML comes for a new field -- some researchers adapt and build, and others fail and complain (or worse, don't really even try).

> it's a hoop that everyone who has ever published any such paper (including all the big names) has had to pass in order to be published

I think the one thing we agree on is that this field desperately needs large public benchmarks that are representative of modern chip design.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse