361–370 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a company culture where _everyone_ feels safe enough to speak up and being heard (instead of getting kicked out) is not democracy. It is smart and crucial, in my opinion. I am surprised that critizing something at a company equals being a trouble maker to you.
Listening to feminists doesn't achieve that. It rather leads to the opposite, an atmosphere of distrust and fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who tend toward 1. would say that Google has bent over backwards to accomodate protesters and has acceded to their demands multiple times, e.g. canceling their project in China and dropping their contract with the US military. Seems reasonable to me.
That’s a very good point. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I haven’t followed the situation (or other Google situations like the ones you mentioned) closely. However, I feel a just-as-reasonable explanation is that Google did those things to save face because if they truly felt those were the right things to do, there would be no retaliation and there would be an implicit agreement that the intention was morall…
Companies don't have thoughts or emotions. A company's actions are a result of the individuals that make it up. When you see controversy like the China thing or military contracts, that's just how decisions get made in big companies. Someone wants to get money from the military. Some other people don't. They discuss it and the company makes a decision by individuals taking action. People inside Google that wanted to do military contracts heard the counterarguments and didn't carry on. That's all.
Maybe Larry Page thought "hey, this is bad for our brand" and fired all in charge. But that seems very unlikely. What seems likely to me is that the people that wanted to do the project heard the controversy and decided on their own that it wasn't a good idea.
As the company gets bigger, there are certainly more and more of these controversies. It does get hard to manage when you feel personally responsible for what others have done and your voice is not heard. That is why people are leaving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-organizers-say-th... >In a message posted to many internal Google mailing lists Monday, Meredith Whittaker, who leads Google’s Open Research, said that after the company disbanded its external AI ethics council on April 4, she was told that her role would be “changed dramatically.” Whittaker said she was told that, in order to stay at the company, she would have to “abandon”…
> My manager started ignoring me, my work was given to other people, and I was told to go on medical leave, even though I’m not sick. I'm sure there is another side to this story. Nobody has an infinite amount of time or effort. If you're spending your time organizing protests rather than doing the job you're actually paid to do, you shouldn't be surprised that your coworkers and manager would be upset that they have…
When I got back I was on the performance improvement plan, told any attempt to transfer would be blocked, and so I just stopped showing up. Never heard from them again. (I was there for 6 years and my last performance review was "Superb". Probably not the type of person they want to drive away. But it was time.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not know how to use google? " rel="nofollow">https://ainowinstitute.org/research.html>
You missed the word 'exactly'. Can you summarize her work so that it doesn't sound trivial or bogus? Just looking at the titles I expect something similar in quality to articles debunked here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09866
I'm reluctant to engage further because it seems like an absurd line of reasoning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is false and I'm not sure how you got here.
I looked it up myself when it happened, not a single male in her entire reporting chain below Sundar. Marketing is female dominated so it isn't really that strange, but I wonder how a male could get enough influence to bully her in that position.
>Whittaker also publicly denounced some Google decisions, including the appointment of Kay Coles James, a conservative think tank leader, to an AI ethics board. Google soon nixed the board. I wonder how much that contributed. No matter the personal political leanings of the employees, most companies try to stay on the good side of both sides of the political aisle. When the president of Heritage Foundation (which is…
[flagged]
Cool! Does she want a medal or something? I'm not sure why people feel like they should be rewarded by their own company for publicly going against them. Talk about entitlement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Her day to day work is/was in the AI bias and ethics space, even within google. Her manager apparently disagreed. I can easily imagine that the AI bias work could have been a 20% project which she spent way more than 20% time on, and now the manager decided that enough is enough.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from, but it's not correct. If you're in google, I'm happy to source what I'm saying more specifically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well at least you're being downvoted. Where do you draw the line at bigotry and perversion? Homosexuality, transexuals, polyamory, eating meat, necrophilia, cannibalism, bestiality, pedophilia? There's people who non-ironically believe that each of the above is no worse than any of the others and should be treated as such. Unless you take a live and let live approach that I have never met anyone in real life admit to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? Leaders who hired you and pay you are entitled to direct your work. What planet are you from?
Sorry I was taught as a kid that just power is derived from the consent of the governed. Must be weird for some people.