Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher • Hacker News Board

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#251

Post by pugetsounds » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #91

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…

> 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 the context of their interaction warranted the tone her response? There’s a time and place for incivility, but that was not it.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#252

Post by rasengan0 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

Any lawyers care to comment? Looks like it works both ways https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#253

Post by stickfigure » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #178

ivalm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does "need" have to do with anything? If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved. Nobody pays out $90M for fun.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#254

Post by root_axis » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:41 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #250

root_axis wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see. I would say in response that we're pretty much at a subjective impasse then. The thrust of my argument is that brilliant assholes are generally well tolerated. By "asshole" I don't mean someone who got canned for a harmless joke, I'm talking about toxic aggressive egomaniacs who wield their expertise and prestige as a cudgel to demean and abuse their colleagues.

I think we're in agreement, to a degree. There are some types of asshole that the industry has agreed to not tolerate. Then they say "See? We don't tolerate any kinds of assholes! You have to partner well and communicate well with people now!" Even though they absolutely do still tolerate certain kinds of assholes, like the kind you mean, and, to a degree, people who wield popular ideas like a cudgel. I feel like the…

I absolutely agree that the industry has made big strides in an overall less toxic direction.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#255

Post by akarma » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:43 PM UTC

dvtrn wrote: post #236

akarma wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, current employer has this as a point of policy for interpersonal conflicts barring severe enough circumstances where a reasonable person would say "yes this requires intervention from on high". I completely agree with you, but what happened here was that this manager sent this email to a large group of employees, not the specific employees she had the issue with (which would be fine!). This email wasn't an…

And so then, this is immediately fireable? Not knowing Google's policy for corrective management, I then go back to my original question and taking in your response, why would it be reasonable to fire an individual over this? or Is it perhaps in fact more reasonable to fire them using this and other behavioral or disciplinary incidents? Of which-I must say, in terms this Googler, none of us are privy to

Isn't it reasonable to fire someone for dragging other employees into a personal dispute with the person's manager?

It'd be acceptable if it's a relevant party, like your skip or your manager's skip, even if it would anger your direct manager. This, however, is entirely different. It's venting your frustration to a large group of coworkers. It takes away from productivity as a whole, and is socially inappropriate.

I don't know about Google's management policies, but at most companies I've worked at, senior employees and managers are held to an even higher standard, and this would make firing a more likely choice than some type of correction.

Regardless of the hypotheticals, from what I've read, she offered an ultimatum, and they declined her ultimatum, which resulted in her being fired:

> Dr Gebru had emailed her management laying out some key conditions for removing her name from the paper, and if they were not met, she would "work on a last date" for her employment. According to Dr Gebru, Google replied: "We respect your decision to leave Google... and we are accepting your resignation.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#256

Post by dvtrn » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

akarma wrote: post #255

dvtrn wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And so then, this is immediately fireable? Not knowing Google's policy for corrective management, I then go back to my original question and taking in your response, why would it be reasonable to fire an individual over this? or Is it perhaps in fact more reasonable to fire them using this and other behavioral or disciplinary incidents? Of which-I must say, in terms this Googler, none of us are privy to

Isn't it reasonable to fire someone for dragging other employees into a personal dispute with the person's manager? It'd be acceptable if it's a relevant party, like your skip or your manager's skip, even if it would anger your direct manager. This, however, is entirely different. It's venting your frustration to a large group of coworkers. It takes away from productivity as a whole, and is socially inappropriate. I…

Isn't it reasonable to fire someone for dragging other employees into a personal dispute with the person's manager?

I absolutely do not believe it is, barring mitigating circumstances or policies that neither you nor I are privileged to access.

In most cases, this is called "venting". I have NO doubts my subordinates probably talk about me in DM or have gripes about some of my issues as their leader. But I know and have seen my direct reports be very opinionated with me in 1:1, they are very outspoken with me. One person had a moment of raw emotion, not because of something I had done but the organization at large.

And I encourage all of it because it means I can trust them to be honest with me when I need that candor, and in return, because I meet people where they are, give them room for expression and authenticity, they know they can trust me not to bring retribution upon them for being opinionated, even amongst themselves. I might not always be able to move the needle in the direction they wish, but they know I will always make sure their opinions have a voice at the leadership table-even if it means I am the one who has to take the hit for it while we continue trying to meet our mission as Ops Engineers. That's Leadership. Capital L.

Among larger groups? So what? No really, so what? Can I tell you that I am a founding and sitting member of an org wide DEI initiative and we actively encourage affinitized groups of employees to form resource groups, kvetch among themselves and present areas of contention to us to enact positive change at large? That we have two diverse members of the executive team on this initiative? That it has the full support of our board of directors and even our group of investors?

Would you believe me if I told you we had five people accept offers at the company who specifically said the reason, not one reason, the reason they accepted the offer was learning that this was something our organization has in place?

Now:

This is not most cases-granted, but I am regressing my interpretation to the mean intentionally because reacting to outliers in any direction as a default response gives room for extraneous and unnecessary harm. I default to maximizing good and giving people a voice, not looking for a reason to exclude them from making the business better for customers and employees with equal vigor.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#257

Post by ivalm » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #121

ivalm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

He was laboring with contracts that stipulated severance, which got paid out.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#258

Post by busterarm » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #223

busterarm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a manager tells anyone at their company that their humanity is not valued in the company, I would expect them to be walked out the door on the spot. Managers act as agents of the company and the amount of legal assfucking that statement opens the company up to is enormous.

> If a manager tells anyone at their company that their humanity is not valued in the company, I would expect them to be walked out the door on the spot. Well thank god I don't work for you. Most tech companies don't fire everyone engaging in employee activism or they would have much larger labor issues to deal with.

Telling another employee of a company that you're a manager at that "their humanity is not valued by the employer" is not activism.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#259

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

JamesBarney wrote: post #196

whimsicalism wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't "accept someone's resignation" and then add terms to it and actually "resign" them a little sooner than they were going to resign. That's called firing.

If you sent your boss a letter that said "I will resign if you do not meet conditions X, Y, and Z." and they decide to not meet those demands, what do you expect the company to do? Let you continue to have access to company resources? My expectations are they would immediately terminate access to all company resources, pay me 2 weeks, send me a letter wishing me good luck on my future endeavors, and send an email to…

Google didn't do that. They terminated her employment immediately. They also said it was because of her email.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#260

Post by busterarm » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:51 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #248

busterarm wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Android is arguably worth a hell of a lot more than the $50 million + salary that he received and if they didn't kick him some money, they would never be able to make a similar acquisition deal in the future. Nobody would sell a technology like that for that little and Google would have to forever compete with future-Androids. If they had fired him under more favorable circumstances his payout would have been…

He sold the company to them in 2005. If he didn't think that was a fair price he wouldn't have agreed to the sale. That was when he was compensated for his creation. After that, he was compensated through salary. I don't understand your point of view here. If I sell something to someone else, I'm not expecting to get more payout for it fifteen years down the line unless some kind of residual was explicitly negotiated…

1. It was an aquihire. Usually there's some performance secondary payout strings attached.

2. It doesn't matter what their deal was. It matters what public perception is. I'm talking entirely about public perception.

Regardless of what their deal was, Google has to send a signal that _impacts future deals_. If the general developer public thinks that Android was acquired for too little, then we will all be reluctant to sell our projects to Google. That's the whole point.

It has nothing to do with him thinking Google treated him fairly. It has to do with whether we think we could keep a company going long enough to make more money than his payout on _our_ work.

Google needs to make more Android-like deals in the future.