Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher • Hacker News Board

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#121

Post by whimsicalism » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

ivalm wrote: post #110

whimsicalism wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> definitely not civil. I agree that people should try to be kind and charitable to each other, and this conversation didn't show that. That said, I think we also have to be cognizant of the way "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo. It might not have been very "civil" for instance when Google employees walked out of the offi…

What about paying $90 million to the key person in creation of android? Honestly, he is a scumbag, but that doesn’t nullify his contribution to google (?) it’s not that he was paid for sexual harassment, it’s that he got paid for being creator of one of the most important products in the world.

Was he laboring for free before that?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#122

Post by pmoriarty » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #77

root_axis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this line. Toxic personality types are a hallmark of the technology sphere and they are typically given a free pass on such behavior in the name of meritocracy. The problem for Gebru is that her particular type of toxicity is not palatable to the entrenched culture, merit be damned.

Those free passes ended years ago as can be seen by many high-profile removals and resignations (for both corporate policy and social pressure reasons).

"Those free passes ended years ago as can be seen by many high-profile removals and resignations (for both corporate policy and social pressure reasons)."

Linus still has a job, AFAIK. So does Lennart Poettering. Both have plenty of defenders on HN.

That's not to mention people like Peter Thiel and his fans.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#123

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

teen wrote: post #76

tmotwu wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she was truly removed for her abrasiveness, we would have a completely separate discussion entirely. What transpired, from both her disclosures and Google's leaderships response, has justifiably reigned in a lot of concern and skeptism from the broader research community.

She was, they said her email was not befitting of a manager. Which is clearly true

I've seen way worse emails. Doesn't seem like a fireable offense to me. At least I've seen people not fired for worse and never seen anyone fired for something similar (or less).

As someone I saw post on Twitter relate to this... the best way to discriminate is to have rules, but apply them discriminately. So you can always point to the rule, but it really only applies to certain people.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#124

Post by akarma » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

tmotwu wrote: post #55

elefanten wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Body of work aside, she absolutely is an aggressive-ranging-into-toxic Twitter personality and a very strident proponent of a divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy.

If she was truly removed for her abrasiveness, we would have a completely separate discussion entirely. What transpired, from both her disclosures and Google's leaderships response, has justifiably reigned in a lot of concern and skeptism from the broader research community.

> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in the email. "Stop writing your documents because it doesn't make a difference."

This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#125

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

king_magic wrote: post #4

After reading everything that has come out (e.g. her email) and her history of highly toxic Twitter behavior, I honestly can't blame Google for accepting her resignation (she was not fired).

Can you please provide some context? What’s the toxic Twitter behavior?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#126

Post by whimsicalism » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

harrisonjackson wrote: post #116

whimsicalism wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm aware of how FB&Google work. > when someone gives 2 weeks notice. But she didn't give 2 weeks notice. This seems to be the key detail.

Definitely! The terms of her resignation are unclear. If you give an employer an ultimatum and they don't want to give in to your demands then is that giving notice or quitting on the spot or something else? Should her managers/google legal have waited for her to tell them when exactly she was going to leave?

> Should her managers/google legal have waited for her to tell them when exactly she was going to leave?

Yes, if they wanted her to resign they should have waited for her to resign rather than fire her. If they fired her, seems odd to call it a resignation.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#127

Post by cheese_van » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

I don't fully understand the controversy and so take neither side. However, as I started in IT in in 84, it is curious to me that workforce culture has changed so. I recall the dourly suited IBM guys, all in lockstep, sharing identities, so to speak. One's role was well understood, and conforming to that role -conduct, performance, behavior- was very circumscribed and universally understood.

Criticizing one's employer was possible within very defined circumstances, and always privately, but doing so in a public square was a sure route to termination. This seemed reasonable at the time.

Has the relationship of employee/employer changed so?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#128

Post by marricks » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

elefanten wrote: post #32

tmotwu wrote: post #18

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. 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…

Body of work aside, she absolutely is an aggressive-ranging-into-toxic Twitter personality and a very strident proponent of a divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy.

How is that relevant to this discussion of her getting dismissed? It's okay to unceremoniously let her go because she is outspoken on Twitter? That's the only way your comment would seem relevant to this discussion.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#129

Post by contemporary343 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #61

mellosouls wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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); perhap…

I think the tone on HN was markedly more critical than elsewhere and I certainly notice that the divergence in tone seems greatest when discussing black people and women.

Yep, I've noticed this too.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#130

Post by westwing » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #38

echelon wrote: post #2

Companies 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.

Most companies want to appear to have a diversity of people who look different but have the same opinions and viewpoints as the rest of the group. What they should strive for is a diversity of backgrounds, viewpoints, experiences and have that process account for the differences in how those people arrived at where they currently are.

Most companies don't care about diversity of any kind for any reason besides PR. Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians.

Diversity in terms of measurable metrics, such as women/minorities/LGBT++ being adequately represented, is simply a benchmark that can be paraded around for appeasement purposes.