About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

> People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.

I strongly encourage people to read some books on negotiations - as well as read up on legal ramifications to some negotiations.

Pretty much all books/courses on negotiations say: Ultimatums have their place, but are a minefield (i.e. they can blow up on you), and should be used as a last resort. From a negotiations standpoint, the response was adequate - which is why they all caution against using such an approach.

As for the 2 week thing, this is a convention, but not a requirement. In my company, it's not unusual for someone to be shown the door the same day they announce they plan to leave to another company (it's not the norm, but not at all unusual). The manager/company always ponders whether there are risks in keeping the employee for a few more weeks vs the gains, and this is the question Jeff pondered - that he did this is quite normal. Will the employee provide anything useful to us in those two weeks (e.g. handoff work to others, etc)? Could he/she cause problems (bad mouth people to fellow employees, steal IP, etc). If it's a disgruntled employee, they are usually shown the door the same day. In Timnit's case, it's unlikely there was any value in letting her stay for 2 more weeks.

I once intended to leave the company I was working for. The night before, I took out everything of (personal) value from my cubicle, as well as from my work machine. Only then did I have the discussion with my manager.

Having seen how she communicates and handles difficult situations, I think she really should read those kinds of books. Sometimes her behaviors are textbook examples of what not to do.

(Hint: If you're trying to influence someone, or a whole industry, you are negotiating, whether you choose to think of it that way or not).

> the idea is the exact same

Yes, in that they are both childish. Your version just added more weasel words. The second you bring up the "R" word as a threat you have played your hand; everything else is window dressing.

This topic, over the past couple of days, seems to me to have become fraught, polarised and argued to distraction and faction.

It's not a stretch to say that the world has a problem with discrimination, or that big personalities can rock the boat when they go against the grain. Or that corporates have interests to defend.

I'd like in this case, though - not to say that all the other factors aren't worthy of examination as subjects in their own right - to see this paper. The authors/collaborators are leaders in the field. There are legitimate concerns about AI/ML; the validity/reliability of data from which, nowadays, consequential outcomes are derived.

Please, let's ignore - at least for now - the corporate politics, the heat of the race/gender politics, the PR machines weighing in (look at all the news outlets grabbing this atm), and take a look at what the paper says. The right people (those in the field and qualified/able to do so) should be listened to.

As for the politics of this, and the posturing and politicising and agenda-building on all sides: that doesn't help.

AI and ML affect us all now. This is a trend. Let's at least expose the findings of acknowledged leaders in the field - let's see this study - before we descend into the sideshows of politics and factionalism. Please.

Edit to clarify: tl;dr - I've not seen/read this contested paper. Whatever its contents, I want to see them, and imo that is more important than the current controversy blizzard etc.

(grandparent here, different throwaway)

> Maybe it’s because Google doesn’t actually have a desire to work with her, in which case, the ultimatum (or whatever it truly was) is just a convenient out.

There's almost no question about that in my mind. Maybe google didn't see her work as useful. Maybe she was just an asshole and they didn't like working with her. I have no idea. But if you are already on thin ice (or your company even feels just neutral about you) and you give an ultimatum, prepare for them to use it against you.

Then you probably have to get hired at a corporation that never puts its own well being above the rest.