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

291–300 of 326 posts

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#291

Post by frongpik »

throwawaygoog7 wrote: post #53

Contrarian view. Some of these points can individually be refuted. As an outsider, here’s what it looks like: - you have an employee who (in her letter) hired attorneys to sue you. - you have an employee who was given an award for impact who openly mocks it and thinks it’s a joke, which detracts from culture - you have an employee who went on a Twitter tirade and send several pages of information teaching a leading p…

There's nothing offensive in your message. But you're right that in the current climate it's wiser to use anon accounts.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#292

Post by jasonv »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #269
jasonv wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For internal approval, which has a 2 week process, at the paper deadline. From Jeff Dean's email:

JD> Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#293

Post by frongpik »

cavisne wrote: post #165

It's truly wild these extremists are trying to cancel Jeff Dean at this point. If they succeed you should assume Google is dead, sell your stocks and backup your data.

They are more like fundamentalists, though, i.e. fanatics who equate non believers with enemies.

Jeff not only has a monumental reputation and wealth, he's also under Brin's and Page's protection who own more than 50% of Google.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#295

Post by whimsicalism »

JamesBarney wrote: post #272
whimsicalism wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would guess your "elsewhere" exists in a ideological bubble that is much stronger than the one hacker news exists in. I am in a bubble where I mostly talk to college educated people and people who have educated themselves in a similar tradition or are well-read. Perhaps it is snobbish of me, but I am mostly okay with that bubble for discussion forums. Conditioning on that type of person, who make up most people o…

> I am in a bubble where I mostly talk to college educated people and people who have educated themselves in a similar tradition or are well-read. Perhaps it is snobbish of me, but I am mostly okay with that bubble for discussion forums. > Conditioning on that type of person, who make up most people on HN, Reddit, and Twitter, HN seems like it is in a right-leaning bubble. If most of the people you talk to are colleg…

> you most definitely exist in a bubble

Why am I getting so many comments like this - I am pretty explicitly stating that I am aware that I am in a "bubble", my social circle isn't perfectly representative of America. That said, I think that restricting the forums I frequent to one's with primarily people who are well educated is a defensible practice.

My claim is this: among the sort of forums where people are actually having discussions about Timnit Gebru's firings (ie. highly educated crowds of people who pay attention to the goings ons in AI ethics, Google, etc.), HN skews right-leaning.

All this talk about the "median American" is irrelevant to what I'm talking about because I don't really care to be in a discussion forum with the "median American", particularly post-Thanksgiving.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#296

Post by whimsicalism »

foogazi wrote: post #246
whimsicalism wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the domain is AI ethics, then Yann is not a domain expert, she is. Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. > the expert in your field and you have work for this person, who controls your career and compensation Must be harder when your CEO boss has a tendency to call domain experts pedophiles, yet I see Musk praised frequently…

> Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. Your description above sounds like gatekeeping to me - not saying that is the researcher’s intent - but it doesn’t seem to make for good science

I'm not the one saying people who criticize "domain experts" deserve to be fired. I think both are within the realm of discourse and shouldn't be retaliated against.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#297

Post by whimsicalism »

commandlinefan wrote: post #247
whimsicalism wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy. Reading the HN comments section sometimes feels akin to doing archival research on letters to the editor during the peak of the civil rights movement. It's astonishing how consistent the tropes are.

> during the peak of the civil rights movement. Actually, you're right, but you're making the opposite point than you think you are. I wasn't alive in 50's or the 60's (and I was too young to even remember the 70's), so my whole life I just took for granted that what the history books had to say about racial inequalities at those times was true. It's hard to miss, though, that people are saying the exact same things…

Pray tell, explain more about this "opposite point."

> it makes me wonder how true the history books reflected reality at that time.

What parts of the history books do you think might not be true?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#298

Post by whimsicalism »

julianapostate wrote: post #230
whimsicalism wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but I also think historical comparisons are permissible and don't prevent you from using what words you want?

historical comparisons with clearly demarcated "bad" sides are pretty much just veiled bad faith arguments.

I would say that the bad argument was arguing that someone deserved to be fired because they were "divisive" and "dogmatic" on twitter.

I was only trying to point out the parallels in bad argumentation between now and then.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#299

Post by whimsicalism »

prionassembly wrote: post #238
whimsicalism wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are we evaluating her as a researcher or as an activist? I honestly don't know how to take this comment. Are you comparing her work to cultural theorists like Baudrillard, etc.? Because a brief read through her papers and they seem to be dealing with common-sense ethical concepts, not French social critique. Otherwise, this comment is just odd - no real specific criticism of her body of work except to suggest that…

I'm suggesting that HN readers who are upvoting my comments familiarize themselves with these authors. Gebru is a successful "scholar" as far as the credentials game goes; I don't presume to have anything to teach her. Edit: Are we sure calling something "common-sense ethics" is a common-sense proposition? Are we comfortable deriving this Ought from that Is?

> Gebru is a successful "scholar" as far as the credentials game goes; I don't presume to have anything to teach her.

Again: back up your assertions or they are worthless. I'm reading her papers and have also read many of the authors you are mentioning, there is very little in common.

> Are we sure calling something "common-sense ethics" is a common-sense proposition? Are we comfortable deriving this Ought from that Is?

So your critique now is that her papers are steeped in a moral realist perspective? It seemed you were going for the dogwhistle-y "diversity hire" rhetoric, but I'd welcome any actual critique on the merits.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#300

Post by exolymph »

whimsicalism wrote: post #266
yanderekko wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Remember, whosoever hears the whistle is the dog :)
Post reply on HN