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

Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 326 posts

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#151

Post by busterarm »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #52
busterarm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the number of people I know who privately think that she resigned rather than got fired and similarly won't speak out (there's tons of internal threads talking about her being fired from what I can tell here), I think it actually is a small percentage.

> "think that she resigned rather than got fired" Thats objectively one way or the other - it's not a matter of opinion.

I agree with you: When you say "do X or I quit", that's resigning and not being fired.

There's still a ton of people, including her, who think that she was fired. The amount of pushback from those folks for saying that she resigned has silenced a lot of people, from what I've seen.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#152

Post by justicezyx »

contemporary343 wrote: post #37

Google (and Google Brain in particular) benefited immensely from Gebru's work, and her being affiliated with them. This can be seen in how often they (including Jeff Dean) pointed to her work to show they were taking questions of fairness and bias in AI algorithms seriously. The flip side is that you have to respect the researcher, who frankly has more credibility than you do as an organization in this space. Even to…

ATM Timinit's work is nothing but a decoration.

Unless the underrepresented people got their deserved social and economic status, these so called fairness ethical study would just be building a mansion over empty air.

I am also wholly assured that the rich and powerful progressives know very well of this truth. And they are very willing to indulge these self-righteous elite intellectual. As long as they do not roll up their sleeves and get to help the unprivileged to rectify the system.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#153

Post by whimsicalism »

akarma wrote: post #124
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.

> "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.

WOW what a misleading quote.

Here's the full paragraph that that is from:

> Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#154

Post by root_axis »

ralusek wrote: post #137
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.

Her particular type of toxicity is the only reason she remained employed for as long as she did.

What do you mean? Are you saying she was undeserving of the position based on her qualifications?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#155

Post by busterarm »

thelock85 wrote: post #59
busterarm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When they try to illegally hire/not-hire people based on protected class, which if I read correctly is something she was pushing for. Forgive me if this is mischaracterized. I don't want to work anywhere that pushes any ideology so far that they break the law. That goes for if it's in pushing their bottom line as well, so regulatory gray-area companies like Uber & AirBnB are also a no-go for me.

It is hard to find a reputable tech firm or startup that has not been publicly or internally accused of breaking a rule, regulation or law. It's engrained in the ideology of innovation.

No. Innovation does not require law breaking. This is an opinion espoused by people who lack ethics.

Tech firms and startups are just businesses. Breaking laws/regulations is not a requirement to operate a new business.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#156

Post by dvtrn »

edgyquant wrote: post #119
dvtrn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it "disrespects the veterans" in some people's eyes. Astonishing, isn't it, that the same people who found issue with Kaepernick's protest probably have never heard the name "Nate Boyer"[1] before-who is both a veteran of the armed forces, and a veteran of the NFL. It's never good enough. [1] https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/05/nfl-49ers-colin-kaepernick-...

I’m pretty sure “disrespects the flag” is little more than a strawman to attack instead of them having to discuss the actual point trying to be made.

Of course it is.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#157

Post by whatshisface »

srean wrote: post #138
whatshisface wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her. I know none of the facts and am perfectly ignorant about this situation, but I have seen people get kicked out for semi-justifiable surface reasons that were totally unrelated to why their superiors didn't like them. So a-priori, the theory that the difference between someone's not-so-significant faults being tolerated or no…

> The case being made in this thread is that that was how they got her, not why they fired her Conjecturing what could be the real reason, person A conjecturing why a person B does what he does (hates our freedom, for example) and why one should not take B's own explanation of his own actions -- these to me are an avoidable form of discourse. Nothing good comes of it other than an obligate outrage.

Well, refusing to consider the idea that someone might do something with more than zero layers of subtlety... would lead to falling for every trick anybody ever tries to play. ;) A more appropriate response would be to admit that it's not easy to tell the difference, and maybe, if the interlocutor cares enough, to do some research to determine whether or not it's still suspicious once the facts are known. One example of some facts that could resolve or strengthen the suspicion would be: How many other emails of equal or greater verbal strength were sent at Google, but then not followed up by dismissal?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#158

Post by harrisonjackson »

whimsicalism wrote: post #126
harrisonjackson wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google.

As an employee, I agree, it is twisted to call it a resignation.

As an employer, of course that's exactly what they'd do with any employee who says "I quit, I'll tell you exactly when" and then proceeds to blast out a disruptive email.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#159

Post by seppel »

contemporary343 wrote: post #66
laretluval wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably there would have been time for discussion if the paper had not been submitted a day before the deadline.

There's still time for discussion! The paper's only in review and they would have had to make revisions anyway. I'd say it's the management that made an ultimatum to the research team.

> The paper's only in review

You submit a final version for review. You cannot change a paper significantly after it was accepted.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#160

Post by Certhas »

kenjackson wrote: post #111
actuator wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her spat against Yann LeCun felt very wrong to me. That is not how fellow academics/researchers should treat each other. Maybe Yann LeCun was wrong, the way she conveyed the message disregarding any knowledge he might have on this was definitely not civil. She could have chosen a different way to address the complaints here, not by getting overtly confrontational. Maybe the review group got it wrong, maybe they were…

I've tried to piece together the debate with LeCun, but I can't find anything she said that seemed all that bad. It seemed like, if anything, she just simply wouldn't let him off the hook. And it's very possible I missed several tweets that were really toxic...

Also, to put the double standard here into context, HN comment threads always had plenty of people defending Linus Torvalds tone.
Post reply on HN