Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher • Hacker News Board

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#261

Post by stickfigure » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:52 PM UTC

harrisonjackson wrote: post #158

whimsicalism wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This seems to fit neatly under "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#262

Post by yanderekko » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:52 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.

You can engage in employee activism without making shrill claims about how you're being treated as a subhuman. If this seems difficult then thank god I don't work with you.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#263

Post by commandlinefan » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

pinewurst wrote: post #3

I'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.

> where the numerator is such a small percentage of the denominator

Especially considering that we don't know how many people would have "rallied" in favor of her firing (if there were such a thing), even if we could believe that they could do so without fear of reprisals as those rallying "against" it can.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#264

Post by harrisonjackson » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

athms wrote: post #231

harrisonjackson wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what a lot of companies do when someone gives 2 weeks notice. Send them home right away and pay them for the 2 weeks so you can keep them from filing unemployment and have them on the hook for any exit interview / handoff questions etc. They always want you to sign "something" as part of the process, too.

>you can keep them from filing unemployment You cannot file for unemployment aid if you resign or are terminated for cause. You can only get assistance if your termination is the result of your position being eliminated, otherwise known as a reduction in force. This is valid in California and I believe true in every other state in the US.

Employees file for unemployment all the time when they may or may not be eligible. There is a whole appeal process which takes a look at who is really the "moving party" when an employee leaves.

> Frequently after notice of a quit, layoff, or discharge has been given, either the claimant or the employer will act to accelerate the separation. Such action can alter the character of the separation.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

I don't really think unemployment is relevant in this case. I am interested in whether she technically quit or resigned though.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#265

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

ejanus wrote: post #35

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).

I stand with you. This is Google's best decision this week. Workplace should remain workplace and should not be turned into political arena.

Good luck keeping politics out of ethics.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#266

Post by whimsicalism » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

yanderekko wrote: post #262

whimsicalism wrote: post #223

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. 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.

You can engage in employee activism without making shrill claims about how you're being treated as a subhuman. If this seems difficult then thank god I don't work with you.

Very dogwhistle-y comment

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#267

Post by schoolornot » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 7:56 PM UTC

courtf wrote: post #187

Turns out, even Timnit Gebru, making ~500k a year researching AI ethics at Google, can still be fired. Turns out, Google would feed each and every one of their employees, feet first, into a giant wood-chipper if that was the most cost-effective, legal way of disposing of them. Turns out, the tech industry isn't really all that structurally different than any other industry. Ignore that pipe full of blood and guts y'a…

It’s not illegal for a company to marginalize someone for rocking the boat. I’ve worked with tons of people who have been relegated to basement offices or positions where they just “advise” but do nothing all day. Someone thought they had something left of value to add. Then they get a new boss or their current boss has enough and kicks them out.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#268

Post by pseudalopex » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:00 PM UTC

Veedrac wrote: post #133

contemporary343 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you get 'we should spend less money on ML' from the abstract. If anything it suggests investing more in ML, from data curation to architecture development, that would be perfectly within Google's general aim to convey itself as being thoughtful about how to use the capabilities they're developing.

> We end with recommendations including weighing the environmental and financial costs first ‘Train for less time,’ > investing resources into curating and carefully documenting datasets rather than ingesting everything on the web ‘on less data,’ > carrying out pre-development exercises evaluating how the planned approach [...] supports stakeholder values ‘while spending less’ > and encouraging research directions be…

Choosing worthwhile projects doesn't mean spending less.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#269

Post by SAI_Peregrinus » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:07 PM UTC

jasonv wrote: post #12

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).

There was something about the writing in her email that felt.. loaded and questionable without enough factual assertions to carry her point. In Jeff Dean's email, he made one point that could be pretty salient: she submitted the paper for approval right at deadline. If that's true, that is poorly handled. The ultimatum is easily a step too far. And all of this right before a vacation/holiday.

> she submitted the paper for approval right at deadline. If that's true, that is poorly handled.

That's not poorly handled on her part. If she'd submitted it late, that would be her problem. If getting a submission right at the last valid time to make a submission (the deadline) is an issue then it's a problem caused by whoever set the deadline, not the submitter.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#270

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #260

CydeWeys wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And all of that needs to be weighed against the huge worldwide negative PR resulting from the payout, the global walkout of tens of thousands of employees expressing their anger with the decision, and the depressive effect on hiring that has for specific targeted groups. You can't just analyze the payout in isolation; you have to analyze its sum total effects. Turns out, the payment wasn't worth it. Google has said as much and won't be doing it again in the future.

> 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.

I'm still not understanding the point here. If you agree to sell your company for price $X, it doesn't matter who you're selling to; you've sold for that amount. If you think you should get more than $X, then don't sell to Google, or anyone else for that matter, for only $X. If you want less up front but more money over time as part of an incentive structure, then negotiate for that as part of the acquisition (which Andy Rubin did do and was paid out for). All of this is independent from a severance payout fully 15 years after the acquisition.