AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

It looks like the paper was critical of large language models: https://www.fastcompany.com/90582375/timnit-gebru-google-fir...

The original article has been updated with Jeff Dean's response, while a member of Gebru's team (who still works at Google Brain) states that Dean's email is misleading and inaccurate: https://twitter.com/alexhanna/status/1334579764573691904

As I understand it: The paper had already been submitted to a conference, and the "cross functional team" Dean speaks of basically reviewed it like peer reviewers and said you have to retract it. It sounds like Gebru and her co-authors were not given an opportunity to respond to the criticisms to stave off retraction. If you've experienced peer review, you know that such reviews are by no means a definitive analysis of a paper, and one usually gets the opportunity to respond. Here, it sounds like anonymous internal peer review was used as a hammer to retract it. Dean's descriptions of the criticisms sounds rather pedestrian to me, as a researcher, and I'm sure Gebru and her co-authors would push back on these characterizations.

Honestly, it sounds like the paper was attacking some sacred cows internally. And Gebru's work probably threatened other researchers on other teams. Not unlike traditional peer review mind you, but at least one can usually post in on arXiv without worrying about this.

>> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues.

Plain English translation: she didn't present the results of her research in a light that favours the company's goals.

Once in a while someone posts an article on HN about academia and how doing a PhD is badly paid with few opportunities for stable employment. Then the comments will wonder why people still bother with academia.

Well, this is why. Because, as a rule, if you are a researcher in academia you won't be asked to retract your research because it makes someone look bad.

Diversity initiatives are like a graduated social tax. As a passably straight white man I can afford to pay more than an LGBTQ person of color. Just like I can pay more in income taxes than people in different financial situations.

It doesn't bother me if an applicant pool is made a bit bigger for marginalized people than myself, because I do not struggle to fall into any applicant pool whatsoever and have not for most of my adult life. Be it for employment, education, or housing.

Where conversations can get annoying is when I feel demonized because inequity exists independent of my individual actions. But I can live with someone bitching on Twitter because I'm not afraid of the police or telling potential employers I have a kid on the way.

What I don't like living with is the inability of others like myself in my own caste who would dismiss reality on reductionist notions "hiring by race or gender is inherently racist" without critical thought. Ignoring lack of diversity tacitly supports inequity and is itself racist or bigoted, by virtue of doing less than nothing to correct it.

Never heard if her, but after seeing her twitter feed, it’s pretty obvious how toxic she is. Already flying off the handle and accusing Jeff Dean and Google of racist conspiracies, as if her own behavior couldn’t possibly be the reason.

I can't tell if this is about James Damore or not. Is he the victim you are referring to?