Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

platformer.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

741–750 of 926 posts

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#741

Post by aparsons »

uoaei wrote: post #203
aparsons wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She claims to be a leading researcher in the field, but has she written any significant papers or research of note? Her biggest accomplishment seems to be driving Yann LeCunn off Twitter with angry accusations. She tried to continue her power trip at a workplace but her boss called her bluff. This is a great firing for Google. She won’t be missed.

Your comment betrays your inherent bias, and frankly, it is not a good look. Everything you've said here is not only falsifiable, but straight up false. It appears you didn't even try to challenge your own beliefs before spraying them out into the public sphere. You aren't representing yourself in a decent light.

I’m sorry you feel that way. But Timnit is an internet bully with an army of Twitter minions, with the stones to write a ridiculous “How To Apologize” document she tweets at researchers she doesn’t like. I maintain this is an excellent firing if there was such a thing.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#742

Post by ehsankia »

rishav_sharan wrote: post #733
jsmith45 wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds to me like Google has a policy that papers must be internally reviewed before they can be "published". She understood publish in the academic sense, while Google views sending the paper out for conference review as publishing. The paper ends up failing internal review, so per policy it must be promptly retracted. This is confusing to the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that…

I don't think it's miscommunication in anyway. Timnit had submitted dozens of papers before and unless the process requirements are completely new, she would be well aware of them. This seems more of a case of selective enforcement, where she had been allowed to go around the process in the past (or felt that she has enough leverage to be able to do so now) and then not being allowed to do so this time. This feels li…

> where she had been allowed to go around the process in the past

I'm curious, is there anything in the posted information above that points to the fact they were able to go around the 2-week limit in the past? Or is that just a guess?

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#743

Post by ehsankia »

jsmith45 wrote: post #486
sjs382 wrote: post #397

It's hard to make too much sense about what happened. Here's what I made of it, if anyone can point out any important mistakes/inaccuracies/details: 1. She and her co-authors submitted a paper for review 1 day before its (external, for publication?) due date. It's supposed to be submitted to Google 2 weeks prior, so they can review. 2. The authors submitted it externally before the review was returned. 3. Google deci…

It sounds to me like Google has a policy that papers must be internally reviewed before they can be "published". She understood publish in the academic sense, while Google views sending the paper out for conference review as publishing. The paper ends up failing internal review, so per policy it must be promptly retracted. This is confusing to the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that…

> the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that the paper can be fixed.

Asking for the review notes is one thing, it seems like the main demand Jeff refused was giving the names of every reviewer. Why would the names of the reviewers be relevant to the academic, unless they specifically wanted to use the reviewers identity in order to undermine the notes?

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#744

Post by jart »

sorenjan wrote: post #460

AI ethics researcher sounds like a fluff position anyway, she got hired to give Google a shine of inclusiveness to the non technical people that think AI is going to take over the world and doesn't understand that the current state of it is nothing more than pattern recognition and statistics. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but it still bothers me that people like this get highly paid positions to point out probl…

She might have been a bad apple, but attitudes like this are ten times as toxic. It can drive a person mad, just suspecting their peers think about them the way you do. Even if it isn't true and it's just because our view of collective consciousness is distorted by exposure to this kind of resentful bile online.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#746

Post by anonvenger »

wonnage wrote: post #738
anonvenger wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While there is some overlap, generally speaking Identity Politics != Ethics. She's an Identity Politics researcher, narrowly focused on race and gender topics. Not some philosopher or religious figure interested in the flourishing of humanity at large. Here is an abstract from a larger work, presumably her PhD thesis: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06165.pdf . Critical gender and race theory through and through.

You're trying to discredit her for... writing a well-sourced paper on race & gender discrimination in AI.

Well written, well sourced and very narrow for someone that fashions themselves as 'ethicist'. There are more things in life beyond race and gender as seen through the prism of critical race/gender theory. I heard somewhere of this strange word 'love', something to look into. She's young, smart, capable and possibly well meaning in spite of her unbecoming behavior. Perhaps one day she'll grow to see the struggle common to all born of a woman.

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#747

Post by dang »

korse wrote: post #265
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.

Ideological battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#748

Post by anonvenger »

dang wrote: post #747
korse wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ideological battle. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Would you please elaborate?

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#749

Post by cranium »

pas wrote: post #652
kenjackson wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's still posting on Twitter. Did so today, and yesterday. Her response to that tweet is a bit harsh, but not completely unreasonable. I'm not a Twitter expert, so I can't really stitch together their conversation on Twitter to see where/when it goes off the rails.

What/where is her response? Could you link it please?

https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1274808654227619840

Re: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google

#750

Post by mehrdada »

jsmith45 wrote: post #486
sjs382 wrote: post #397

It's hard to make too much sense about what happened. Here's what I made of it, if anyone can point out any important mistakes/inaccuracies/details: 1. She and her co-authors submitted a paper for review 1 day before its (external, for publication?) due date. It's supposed to be submitted to Google 2 weeks prior, so they can review. 2. The authors submitted it externally before the review was returned. 3. Google deci…

It sounds to me like Google has a policy that papers must be internally reviewed before they can be "published". She understood publish in the academic sense, while Google views sending the paper out for conference review as publishing. The paper ends up failing internal review, so per policy it must be promptly retracted. This is confusing to the academic who expects to get access to the raw review responses so that…

Obviously it's hard to pass a judgement without knowing the paper contents. Reading the emails carefully, it seems Jeff acknowledges that the initial review culminated in an "approval" despite some other "reviewers" still in pending state. That is a curious detail. Presumably someone with authority must have flipped the Approval bit within that 1 day. Why that individual did not object? The two-week excuse sounds like a made-up excuse post-facto based on the written policy but clearly that alone does not seem to be the reason this blew up.

This is pure speculation, but it looks like there may have been some additional backchannel from the conference reviewers to their buddies at Google that caused a follow-on sensitivity or objection later from other functions at Google, namely PR & Policy (based on her tweets), which may have been why Timnit was super curious about the identity of the feedback authors.

Post reply on HN