841–850 of 926 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One paragraph has four parentheticals. I wonder which humanities background, other than Law, finds that acceptable.
Foucault nests parenthetical with mdashs (or greek-comma, as some people call them in latin languages), so...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not get that impression. But I do recognize the dense style common on the humanities academic field. It can throw some people off at first.
One paragraph has four parentheticals. I wonder which humanities background, other than Law, finds that acceptable.
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…
Is the part that makes me cynical about Google’s motive. What sort of process calls for XFN feedback on your work but withholds that feedback and its sources from you? This is very odd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While there hasn't been enough evidence to fully condemn either side, I disagree that this is just poor communication. Unless Google deliberately changed the enforcement of the policy just to mess with her, she should have known the policy. It doesn't seem to be a complicated process, and 2 weeks is a reasonably short time to wait. On the other side, Google has been in this game long enough, that they must know a pap…
I will say that having many processes, selectively enforced is a common cover for disparate treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. Jeff's email explicitly says the paper was "approved" then submitted, albeit perhaps in one day. The two-week thing might be a policy but would be immaterial if it ended up approved anyway wit…
> Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted.
If (to the best of her knowledge) she got approval through the correct process, and then an unidentified party opaquely removed the approval after the fact, I think her questions are justified.
> This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (which is when they backed off--before that Google lawyers were prepared to throw us under the bus and our leaders were following as instructed) and the next day I get some random “impact award.” Pure gaslighting. And she was under the impression that her company…
> And she was under the impression that her company would value her so much that, not only they wouldn't take the first "clean" opportunity to let her go, but that they'd want her to stay so much that she could leverage it? In a realpolitik sense you are probably right. But right now I'm going through standard onboarding training and they are VERY explicit that it's not supposed to work this way, and that you are not…
It will be difficult for her lawyers to prove that she was let go as a retaliation, which it is not. The only thing which is apparent is that her employer did not value her work as much as she thought, so that her demands and her threat to resign (and the tarnishment of the Google brand because of the Twitter threads which she would write about it) would actually turn into a "clean" opportunity to let her go.
That is what happens when you are supposed to negotiate, and go the confrontational way. You have to estimate your leverage accurately before the full-blown war, otherwise it is a blitzkrieg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lost the assumption of good faith already in her first tweet, in particular >You can’t just reduce harms caused by ML to dataset bias. She's already attacking a strawman right there. Yann did not deny any harms caused by ML.
Nor did Timnit claim that he was. Her disagreement was about the causes of harms, not the existence of resulting harms.
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…
Me thinks it's a common misconception for strongly opinionated people to believe that companies want to hire them in order for them to "fix things and make the company a better place". In reality, what every company/team/management wants is someone who will give them some constructive criticism on small mistakes here and there that are easy to fix, but ultimately act as a supportive shield for the company against /ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I recently had an exchange with someone that reminded me how important trust and mutual respect is and how the lack of such tends to cause problems to escalate. What feels like a breakdown of trust in society has been on my mind a lot recently. Without trust, it seems communication and collaboration becomes impossible. How can society solve any of its problems when people can't discuss anything about those problems…
I don't know the answers to that. I've been on Hacker News over 11 years. I would like to think I've been building bridges, but it seems like nothing I do is ever enough to reassure people I'm not some SJW Feminazi here to just piss on the guys and let them know what misogynistic assholes they are and it gets hard to keep trying when most of the community has watched me starve for years and openly told me "Not my pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She will land on her feet. There is a huge demand for ideologues willing to lobotomize ML. “Let’s generate fake data with GANs to prevent our AI from discovering politically uncomfortable regularities!” It’s ugly work but someone has to do it, right?
This is a rude dismissal of an entire field within machine learning and statistics (ethics, bias, and robustness).