From what I’ve seen, it’s a pretty clear case of toxic workplace behavior. I’m not sure why the headlines are trying to be sympathetic.
Because the media isn't your friend. Inciting anger gets clicks.
Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
41–50 of 326 posts
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#42Does anyone have a link to the paper she was fired over? I've spent some time searching with no luck. I'd like to know what was technically controversial.
She was not fired. She made an ultimatum, and Google called it.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#43I mean she resigned. She put conditions on her staying at the company. By accepting her resignation, Google simply stated: "We are not gonna comply with these conditions, therefore we accept your resignation".
Let's focus the discussion around if that was a good or bad decision, to not comply with her conditions. She fired herself, there is no discussion around that.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#44I'm tired of FAANG "rallies" where the numerator is such a small percentage of the denominator. I bet one could get "hundreds" of Google employees to rally behind a flat earth and many more for the abolition of mayonnaise.
The numerator is such a small percentage because so many fear losing their jobs for speaking out. In that context, this number is quite significant. Even if you disagree with their stance, you have to admit that it takes courage to speak up in these kinds of situations.
> The numerator is such a small percentage because so many fear losing their jobs for speaking out
Or, more likely, they don't are about the whole "woke" movement and don't want anything to do with it.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#45I'm tired of FAANG "rallies" where the numerator is such a small percentage of the denominator. I bet one could get "hundreds" of Google employees to rally behind a flat earth and many more for the abolition of mayonnaise.
The numerator is such a small percentage because so many fear losing their jobs for speaking out. In that context, this number is quite significant. Even if you disagree with their stance, you have to admit that it takes courage to speak up in these kinds of situations.
What evidence do you have to support this theory?
Perhaps the people who are not speaking out in agreement with you simply don't agree with you.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#46It is unfortunate that way too many commenters on a prior threads dismissed her as a some twitter personality and trivialized her body of work in spite of the fact that she is well regarded and reputable in the ML community. It's becoming clear a rising number of her colleagues are in support of what she was seeking to publish. A reviewer on reddit mentioned the authors have plenty of time to make revisions if there…
She demanded to know the identities of anonymous internal reviewers of her paper, or else she would resign. Google accepted her resignation.
What is the evidence that this has to do with the content of the paper?
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#47Does anyone have a link to the paper she was fired over? I've spent some time searching with no luck. I'd like to know what was technically controversial.
I got the impression that the paper wasn't the controversial part, but rather how both sides handled the internal peer review. Which amounted to her offering her resignation which Google accepted.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, Google spends billions on lobbying and PR, so if you heard anything new and bad about her in the past day or two you gotta wonder. Her job involves ethics, if you're not stirring the pot a bit you're probably not doing ethics and just acting as PR for your company? *Also, while my reply is source/fact free your comment is as well, so I think they're both reasonably at the same level.
Her own Twitter behavior is testament enough. Unless you think Google has control over that, too.
Exactly, most new stories bringing up the July Twitter dispute as context for her current firing is extremely polarizing.
The story could just be "well known Google ethics research quickly let go over paper dispute" but instead the "also she had an altercation in July which really riled people up."
Does the twitter dispute context help as much as her contributions to her field and whatever the specific paper and terms of its publication?
No clue personally, but now I know it's a "bad thing" and she's a "rabble-rouser that likely had it coming".
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#49It is unfortunate that way too many commenters on a prior threads dismissed her as a some twitter personality and trivialized her body of work in spite of the fact that she is well regarded and reputable in the ML community. It's becoming clear a rising number of her colleagues are in support of what she was seeking to publish. A reviewer on reddit mentioned the authors have plenty of time to make revisions if there…
It is unfortunate that way too many commenters on a prior threads dismissed her as a some twitter personality and trivialized her body of work in spite of the fact that she is well regarded and reputable in the ML community.
Both the positive aspects of her contributions and the clear negatives of her approach were rightly pointed out by various people (as well as problems with process and politics at Google); perhaps your reading of a long and complicated morass of comments was unintentionally selective.
Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher
#50Companies can't straddle the line. They're either going to have to go all-in on diversity, inclusion, and politics, or they're going to have to clamp down hard like Brian Armstrong. Google needs to decide what it wants to be. Given its choices, I think it's clear what they want. They just need to say it. It'll help employees and potential employees know if they want to work there.
If my company decides to "go all-in on diversity, inclusion, and politics", could there ever be any legitimate reason to fire an employee who's also "all-in on diversity, inclusion, and politics"?
> could there ever be any legitimate reason to fire an employee who's also "all-in on diversity, inclusion, and politics"
yes, plenty of reasons, you're part of a team, you got to work with the team or you're just using them