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

171–180 of 326 posts

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#171

Post by whimsicalism »

kenjackson wrote: post #123
teen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> he 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.

And HN falls for it every single time.

Oh yeah, we totally didn't fire this Googler for the unionization push, it was because he looked at one of his bosses' publicly available calendar.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#172

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

whimsicalism wrote: post #146
tmpz22 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree historical context on rhetoric can be absolutely eye opening, but your example was not a 1:1 comparison (neither the victims or actions being of equal consequence). It also reminds me of Goodwin's Law [1] where disagreements on the internet so often devolve into calling someone a Nazi (to me a '60s segregationist apologist is one or two steps removed from a Nazi). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s…

I think I'm being pretty explicit that I'm not calling them a segregationist, but I think their rhetoric is illuminating. Not really sure how I can be more explicit on this point. You are the one bringing up comparisons to Nazis, so it appears that you have now fallen prey to Godwin's law.

The problem isn't the specific comparison you're using. The problem is that you're attempting to cut off discussion rather than engage in it.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#173

Post by virgilp »

dmarchand90 wrote: post #118
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).

A subtle but important aspect of her complaint that I would like to point out is she offered to resign, but after some period X. I'm not sure if that was two weeks or a month. Instead, Google layed her off on the same day. Firing her much sooner than the date she requested seems really foolish on Google's side. Arguably, one of the primary reasons a profit-oriented company would hire someone for this kind of job is f…

Because she became toxic. It can happen - when one's relationship with mgmt turns sour, sometimes that one person can become really negative. A respected, "star employee" that turns sour can really destroy morale in entire departments if given time to do so.

Yes, she can complain on Twitter and still do some harm; but without her, management at least has a chance to control the internal conversation.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#174

Post by westwing »

echelon wrote: post #147
westwing wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians. What the hell. How can you say that with a straight face? Of the two best engineers I know, one is is black and the other is trans. They're both 10x engineers.

> How can you say that with a straight face?

I didn't.

> They're both 10x engineers.

https://medium.com/@yuval.idan5/the-10x-engineer-myth-is-wro...

https://sparktoro.com/blog/belief-in-the-mythical-10x-hire-h...

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#175

Post by whimsicalism »

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #87
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.

How the hell is firing someone who offered an ultimatum not a justifiable reason for accepting said resignation? By definition the default position was "leave the company"

Yes, they fired her after requiring her to retract her approved paper criticizing some of Google's practices.

I agree with you that it was a "firing", we can debate over whether it was justified, but it wasn't a resignation.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#176

Post by CydeWeys »

jeffbee wrote: post #161
kenjackson wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Gebru did not engage LeCun in a reasoned debate. She said he should stop taking, listen to her and her allies (and only them). She said "Let us lead here and you follow" and "Just listen", essentially telling the inventor of convolutional neural nets that it was now his role to sit and shut up. That's how woke Twitter works: you define the group of people who are allowed to speak as only you and your allies. You purs…

Some links to specific comments here would help?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#177

Post by whimsicalism »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #172
whimsicalism wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'm being pretty explicit that I'm not calling them a segregationist, but I think their rhetoric is illuminating. Not really sure how I can be more explicit on this point. You are the one bringing up comparisons to Nazis, so it appears that you have now fallen prey to Godwin's law.

The problem isn't the specific comparison you're using. The problem is that you're attempting to cut off discussion rather than engage in it.

We're actually having an extensive discussion in the comments. Welcome!

Don't really know how else to respond to vague accusations of engaging in a "divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy."

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#178

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

He sold Android to Google in 2005 for a hefty sum, and he drew a large salary and stock package every year since. Why in the world would he need a $90M exit package on top of all that when he's being fired for severe workplace misconduct? He already got paid for those contributions.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#179

Post by throwaway0a5e »

echelon wrote: post #147
westwing wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Every hiring manager knows that the most productive engineering teams are made up of 100% Asian cis-male Libertarians. What the hell. How can you say that with a straight face? Of the two best engineers I know, one is is black and the other is trans. They're both 10x engineers.

I thought it was sarcasm.

Poe's law likely applies here.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#180

Post by [deleted] »

snendroid-ai wrote: post #100
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…

> Google (and Google Brain in particular) benefited immensely from Gebru's work Explain

[deleted]
Post reply on HN