Live data from Hacker News

Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

bbc.com

281–290 of 326 posts

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#281
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numerator is such a small percentage because so many fear losing their jobs for speaking out. In that context, this number is quite significant. Even if you disagree with their stance, you have to admit that it takes courage to speak up in these kinds of situations.

What evidence do you have to support this theory? Perhaps the people who are not speaking out in agreement with you simply don't agree with you.

It shows how deluded the far left is honestly, when they think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is afraid to speak up, and not because what the far left stands for is outrageously foolish.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#282

She quit. The reason she quit is legitimate, but it's pretty clear that she quit here. If you say "I quit unless...", and they don't agree to the conditions—you've quit. If I'm running a business, I certainly have no use for an employee who has quit under fairly unfriendly conditions. I definitely wouldn't want someone who has quit spending another month or so using corporate resources for what is now their own perso…

No, that's still "fired". Don't get me wrong, it's an entirely legitimate reason to fire someone - but one doesn't quit unless they actually submit the unconditional resignation. What she did was threaten to quit, and Google (rightfully, IMO) fired her as a consequence of that threat (plus previous email where she was advising colleagues to stop working on some company initiatives - that was very likely a preview of…

There is a lot we don't know about the terms of her resignation/ultimatum and early termination.

For all we know she is still getting paid for X weeks but was asked to not come in. Unless she files for unemployment it doesn't really matter though.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait what part didn't Google do?

Pay her 2 weeks and wish her luck.

I assumed she was paid out her 2 weeks. Do you have reason to believe the didn't or won't do that?

I think the wishing of luck was circumvented by the media firestorm. Her first tweet was about losing corporate access which is usually the first thing H.R. does once a decision has been made.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#284

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 employe…

Do you consider an internal mailing list a public square?

Researchers are used to having more freedom. IBM didn't pretend to be egalitarian and fun. And part of the controversy is Google firing her but characterizing it as accepting her resignation.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#285
post #20

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.

I don't work for Google but the abolition of mayonnaise is a cause I can get behind.

Abolition don't work, my friend. Are you prepared for the mob running french-fry speakeasies and feuding over moonshine mayonnaise?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#286
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…

It doesn't matter if she is aggressive or demure, brilliant or stupid. It doesn't really matter if her work changes the world, or benefits mankind. All that matters for her employment status currently is whether Google sees value in paying her salary.

There is an endless river of souls being callously, unfairly fired every day. The only reason we are even talking about this one is because it is controversial, and has been blasted out on social media. Gebru seems like a smart cookie to me, but being smart, hardworking, just, kind, or any other number of other adjectives simply doesn't matter. Google, just like every other profit driven company on the planet, only cares about the value you provide. They are only different in degree from companies running sweatshops in SE Asia, and if the law allowed it, there would be _zero_ hesitation to bring that reality back here in the US. People in tech would get whiplash from how fast the industry would pull that u-turn.

We want to believe there is a social contract, that Google, or the tech industry, or America, or some group of people, somewhere, is above the competitive fray, and would not stoop so low as to abuse us for profit. Even at the very heights of privilege in the richest country in the world, working at one of the richest, most enlightened companies in the world, you are still getting exploited, and nothing will change that as it stands today. Google will probably keep investing in AI ethics, as long as people keep believing that actually makes them committed to some kind of standard.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's still "fired". Don't get me wrong, it's an entirely legitimate reason to fire someone - but one doesn't quit unless they actually submit the unconditional resignation. What she did was threaten to quit, and Google (rightfully, IMO) fired her as a consequence of that threat (plus previous email where she was advising colleagues to stop working on some company initiatives - that was very likely a preview of…

Probably "AI researcher was let go after threatening resignation" is probably the most accurate description. Also "AI researcher was let go after submitting resignation letter" is pretty close to accurate. But if we had to choose between "AI researcher resigned" and "AI research was fired" I think the first would give you a more accurate idea of questions like "did she submit a resignation letter" (yes), or "who init…

Doing more research it looks like in many legal cases an ultimatum does count as a resignation letter if it's believed to be sincere.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay her 2 weeks and wish her luck.

I assumed she was paid out her 2 weeks. Do you have reason to believe the didn't or won't do that? I think the wishing of luck was circumvented by the media firestorm. Her first tweet was about losing corporate access which is usually the first thing H.R. does once a decision has been made.

She shared what she claimed was an email from her manager. It said her employment was terminated immediately because of her email to non management employees. I believe it was sent before the first tweet. She shared it before the media picked it up.

The employee remains employed in your scenario. Just without duties or access. Terminating employment immediately and not saying anything about severance implies not paying.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's still "fired". Don't get me wrong, it's an entirely legitimate reason to fire someone - but one doesn't quit unless they actually submit the unconditional resignation. What she did was threaten to quit, and Google (rightfully, IMO) fired her as a consequence of that threat (plus previous email where she was advising colleagues to stop working on some company initiatives - that was very likely a preview of…

Probably "AI researcher was let go after threatening resignation" is probably the most accurate description. Also "AI researcher was let go after submitting resignation letter" is pretty close to accurate. But if we had to choose between "AI researcher resigned" and "AI research was fired" I think the first would give you a more accurate idea of questions like "did she submit a resignation letter" (yes), or "who init…

I don't know - the outcome was desired by the management (who jumped at the opportunity to "accept" it) but not by her (who publicly complained about it). That tilts it towards "fired" for me - I believe she miscalculated how desirable she was (as an employee), and made the resignation threat believing management would do their best to avoid that outcome.
Post reply on HN