AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#261

Post by fortran77 » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

room500 wrote: post #23

I feel the title is a little misleading. "withering email" == "anger-fueled message sent by a manager to a large group that asks readers to ignore company policy and start arguments with other leaders" I don't see where "ethical AI researcher" comes into play here. Instead, I see a leader at a company unprofessionally sending messages to a large listserv and is later fired. What am I missing?

> What am I missing?

She wasn't fired. She said she'd resign if they didn't meet her conditions, so the accepted her resignation. She's being disingenuous.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#262

Post by ucha » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

high_derivative wrote: post #90

These things seem to play out like clockwork. Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles, let them hire their activist friends, shower them with fast track careers and promotions. It's good optics, the progressives like it because it makes them feel better about working at big techs. Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to…

Timnit Gebru has a BSc, MSc and PhD in electrical engineering all from Stanford. She did actual electrical engineering work at Apple previously. Maybe it's hard to believe but she's not just another SJW.

The idea that companies only need to do maximize shareholder value isn't that old and was only popularized in the 80s. If you restrict creating value to that, then maybe she didn't create any at Google. But maybe Google wants to create a software that works equally well for everyone and raising the issue of IA biases would have helped achieve that goal.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#263

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:19 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #164

idlewords wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is more like giving two weeks' notice and then being asked to leave the building immediately. It's not pleasant but it also isn't the same as being fired. Google called her bluff here.

Without the specific wording of the original email, I don't think that you can draw this conclusion. I'll note also that this is rather unusual practice for Google. There are a number of people, far more critical of Google, who have resigned, and who have been able to rampdown for 2+ weeks.

The posted email specifically says something about behavior not expected of her position. So it seems possible if you are critical, but fulfill your obligations, they would accept your 2 weeks resignation.

Is there an example you have, even self-reported, of a person who was merely critical of Google and was not given a rampdown? Or someone who was critical and did not fulfill their job obligations, and was given a rampdown?

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#264

Post by dogisan » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:19 PM UTC

Sounds like an authorship dispute (e.g., against her by one of her junior RAs). In that case an HR complaint would be the correct process to retract the paper. Once it is retracted HR would presumably try to mediate between the disputed authors.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#265

Post by korse » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:20 PM UTC

anonvenger wrote: post #160

The character revealing bit is this: > Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized? She was told by her bosses boss to retract a paper. Whatever is it that paper, and whatever the reasons or the delivery method are, there is not…

Why is this post flagged? I too was expecting more than 'social media venting' and am surprised that this article made it this far.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#266

Post by unknownkadath » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #25

GVIrish wrote: post #16

This isn't the email that she sent with conditions she wanted met. Apparently she said she would resign if those conditions were not met, and the response to that email is that she was fired.

Purely speculating, but if I were her, those demands would boil down to "If you go f * yourself, I'll quit" Maybe she's more mature than me, but they're probably not going to end up being super relevant.

Yeah, I immediately started humming along with Johnny Paycheck.

Imagine being a senior researcher at the peak of your career, working for 6 months to a year on a paper, submitting it to a top tier conference, getting accepted, then getting the pointy haired boss do-what-I-said-peasant treatment.

Big nope.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#267

Post by chrisbroadfoot » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

anonvenger wrote: post #160

The character revealing bit is this: > Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized? She was told by her bosses boss to retract a paper. Whatever is it that paper, and whatever the reasons or the delivery method are, there is not…

> spilling 'special sauce' information to the public. You never heard of it, and that's a good thing.

okay, cool. That's not what's going on here. We're talking about AI ethics, and the goal is that our (society's) use of AI meets a high bar for ethics and equity.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#268

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

lowercase1 wrote: post #123

room500 wrote: post #23

I feel the title is a little misleading. "withering email" == "anger-fueled message sent by a manager to a large group that asks readers to ignore company policy and start arguments with other leaders" I don't see where "ethical AI researcher" comes into play here. Instead, I see a leader at a company unprofessionally sending messages to a large listserv and is later fired. What am I missing?

The anger is a distraction. The allegations are most important. "Google silences minorities/women/AI researchers" is way more interesting/important than "Google/AI researcher did/didn't misbehave."

Can we be more careful with our language? Saying "X silenced a minority/woman" or whatever is not saying that "X silenced a minority/woman because they are a minority/woman".

It isn't really clear with your first quote if one thinks that silencing people generally is okay, but not minorities/women, or if silencing anyone is never okay, or if the minority/woman was silenced merely for their demographic status.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#269

Post by roflc0ptic » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #251

tehjoker wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a point, but the key difference is the US is able to export its product worldwide using the military and corporations. I don't think Mexico has the same level of power.

That’s circumstantial though. My point is that these countries aren’t cosmic forces. We’re all humans that instantiate the same fundamental prejudices, instincts, biases, etc. wherever you find us.

I totally agree with that point. The cartoonish depiction was intentional, in response to the cartoonish depiction of unions. The statement is defensible in the sense that I left it wiggly: “one of the most racist orgs” is kinda vague. I’m past my “US out of North America!” Phase, and all generally irritated with one dimensional interpretations of the world, though I could still play a radical leftist on TV

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#270

Post by GVIrish » Thu, Dec 03, 2020, 8:22 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #51

black_puppydog wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the impression I get. First, for this to be a valid case of HR protecting someone who needs protecting, these complaints would have to come from someone who Gebru was managing and therefore have leverage on. I don't know the specifics, but it would stand to reason that she did manage some people, so that possibility can't be excluded for sure. But from the last paragraph it seems that she did actually try…

I don't think modern HR policy really works like that. If one person complains to their HRBP that the speech or actions of another person at the company makes them feel personally attacked, derogated, or establishes a hostile work environment then the company will be forced to take that matter to the second person. HR isn't looking to setup an Oxford debate between persons A and B. They are required to resolve the ho…

Sure but HR wouldn't share the feedback on her paper and give her an opportunity to update it. Instead they demanded that she retract the paper.

How is it fair or standard to make someone retract a paper because of anonymous and secret criticisms that the researcher isn't even given a chance to address?