51–60 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is causing a reverse effect. It's going to create more racist behavior from employers - "If we cannot fire a PoC or some minority, let's not even bother hiring them in the first place." This is not good.
That is also, in fact, illegal. And it's not very hard to realize someone is doing that.
There are a lot of things that are illegal but people do it anyways.
I have a genuine question: If a person of color (I am myself non-white) is not performing, what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you? Are we creating a society that makes it impossible to fire a person of color? You know there are bad apples in every race, right? How do we handle such scenarios? Seems unfair to me, myself being a person of color - I don't want the world to t…
> what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you? A workplace that isn't hostile to people of color and evidence of the cause of dismissal
Dr Gebru's research AFAICT shines a valuable light on some interesting ethical problems. Yet the response so far from Google and even HN has been one of censorship and suppression of Dr Gebru's free speech. How can we reconcile free speech and Google's right of review to her research?
I did not read the paper (just like most people here), but by the title — “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” — it does not look like the CO2 emissions thing is the main topic of this research. BTW, "Stochastic Parrots" is a very descriptive name for the problem > Moreover, because the training datasets are so large, it’s hard to audit them to check for these embedded biases. “A me…
In particular, it is being applied right now to rank Google search results, and probably responsible for lots and lots of Google's profit. You should be skeptical of Google's appraisal of the paper that is material to Google's profit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m going to stand by my post even though AI ethics should be a genuine field. Call me cynical.
The Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA was a high-caliber event. The paper here, done at Google, a leading AI company isn't, and the ethics-washing on view here is deeply concerning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering a Pennsylvania law maker made fake Twitter accounts to write "as a gay person", when you start saying you're a non PoC and conflating what happened with Timnit to "firing badly performing PoC"s you do not at all sound genuine. There is no way to prove you are actually PoC. And even if you did, it's incredibly unrelated to the matter at hand. No one has even claimed she was fired for bad performance and do…
She was fired after sending a mass email, to hundreds of colleagues, criticizing her employer in very strong terms. What company wouldn’t fire an exec who sends a “f * this place” email to the company mailing list?
Is this what esteemed PhD AI ethicists spend their time on? It sounds like a useless grad school paper. I think much less of everyone now.
They lose nothing but face.
I have a genuine question: If a person of color (I am myself non-white) is not performing, what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you? Are we creating a society that makes it impossible to fire a person of color? You know there are bad apples in every race, right? How do we handle such scenarios? Seems unfair to me, myself being a person of color - I don't want the world to t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what does it take to fire them without the entire world playing the race card on you? A workplace that isn't hostile to people of color and evidence of the cause of dismissal
Should companies publicly present their side of the story for every firing?