161–170 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ardit, only a Simpleton would characterize social science as BS. Maybe take that naval podcast with a grain of salt and think for yourself.
hmm... not sure what you are talking about, but you are an anonymous person, with no history... retorting to bullying and name calling... not sure how you are contributing to the conversation.
Damn those Freudian slips.
Ok, so basically she is a bullshit social engineer, masquerading as an 'AI ethics researcher' "Gebru’s draft paper points out that the sheer resources required to build and sustain such large AI models means they tend to benefit wealthy organizations, while climate change hits marginalized communities hardest. “It is past time for researchers to prioritize energy efficiency and cost to reduce negative environmental i…
This was just glossed over and maybe slightly off-topic, but what kind of shifts in language did these two movements in particular affect?
Stuff like #MeToo was about raising awareness about sexual abuse, particularly in the entertainment industry, can't really think of how it forced people to change words that they use.
The best example I can think of is people opting to not use "master/slave"... Which is much more debatable and far off from "core tenets" of the BLM movement like police reform and dealing with systemic racism.
I guess what I am trying to say is that when it comes to language, things are a lot less black/white (heh) and we should be careful about people that are setting themselves up as arbiters. Sort of a who guards, the guardians issue I suppose.
> I understand the concern over Timnit’s resignation from Google - Jeff Dean That's just outright false. She was terminated, effective immediately. Does anyone else find themselves losing a lot of respect for Jeff Dean in all this?
> That's just outright false. She was terminated, effective immediately. Without taking sides (I don't know the full story to understand who is objectively in the wrong here), that's not completely true. She basically gave an ultimatum - meet my demands or I can work on a last date.[1] It is quite common at big tech that once you resign - officially or unofficially - you could be asked to leave effective immediately.…
She was fired.
Good grief - this terrible clickbaity headline writing: "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says" The paper DID NOT force her out of Google. Her subsequent behaviour - submitting without approval, rant, ultimatum, and resignation - did. And she wasn't "forced out": she resigned of her own volition. She could have chosen to make improvements to the paper based on the feedback she…
This sounds a lot like taking what Google said without including Timnit’s point of view. Is it really fair to disparage an article for having a title like that when you’ve completely ignored such a large part of the issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the employer weren't aware they were hiring an activist?
I feel google was being open minded, but the other party was not, and actually being malicious... basically: instead of reform, and fixing whats broken; to tear it down, as it is just another means of oppression.... (yes, that's the mindset of the movement). Her research, looks to be mean spirited, and made to discredit google, so it can be blackmailed into whatever the ideology wants. It is not meant to fix/improve…
I find the sequence of decisions made by Google problematic.
Until they describe in intimate detail what their management has been planning to filter they are effectively retracting all research from their institution as having this unknown bias. Like a tabaco lab that blocks all results against their products. That this was shoddy means nothing unless someone would have caught a Google positive piece as shoddy and actually stopped it at this process. I would guess no.
The right thing to do was let it be published, get external critique and end the relationship if most people with no money in the game thought it was bad science.
Good grief - this terrible clickbaity headline writing: "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says" The paper DID NOT force her out of Google. Her subsequent behaviour - submitting without approval, rant, ultimatum, and resignation - did. And she wasn't "forced out": she resigned of her own volition. She could have chosen to make improvements to the paper based on the feedback she…
clicks. after a decade during which they lost money over fist not knowing how to monetise their product on the internet, they all went to the lowest common denominator: clicks. this in turn forced them to start bending the truth (something that tabloids where known for, and for which they got huge profits).
basically we still don’t have a viable business model for this industry. the only one that works needs headlines such as the one you mentioned to function.
the interesting bit is that publication such as Nikkei or the FT are still top-notch, but these are niches, not general audience publications. (also my FT subscription is £30/month and that’s a lot of money if you’re not in that niche)
Good grief - this terrible clickbaity headline writing: "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says" The paper DID NOT force her out of Google. Her subsequent behaviour - submitting without approval, rant, ultimatum, and resignation - did. And she wasn't "forced out": she resigned of her own volition. She could have chosen to make improvements to the paper based on the feedback she…
> The paper DID NOT force her out of Google. Her subsequent behaviour - submitting without approval, rant, ultimatum, and resignation - did. And she wasn't "forced out": she resigned of her own volition. She could have chosen to make improvements to the paper based on the feedback she was given, resubmit it for approval, and then get on with her life, but she went the other way. This sounds a lot like taking what Goo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ardit, only a Simpleton would characterize social science as BS. Maybe take that naval podcast with a grain of salt and think for yourself.
hmm... not sure what you are talking about, but you are an anonymous person, with no history... retorting to bullying and name calling... not sure how you are contributing to the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's just outright false. She was terminated, effective immediately. Without taking sides (I don't know the full story to understand who is objectively in the wrong here), that's not completely true. She basically gave an ultimatum - meet my demands or I can work on a last date.[1] It is quite common at big tech that once you resign - officially or unofficially - you could be asked to leave effective immediately.…
Threatening to resign is not resigning. Especially as part of a negotiation, and especially when the threat was to "work on" a last date. She was fired.
Ok, so basically she is a bullshit social engineer, masquerading as an 'AI ethics researcher' "Gebru’s draft paper points out that the sheer resources required to build and sustain such large AI models means they tend to benefit wealthy organizations, while climate change hits marginalized communities hardest. “It is past time for researchers to prioritize energy efficiency and cost to reduce negative environmental i…
>-- Has she calculated the oposite alternatives? People driving to libraries, to search for something? Driving to the library, that is the alternative to training these models, really? > -- Ok, basically she is pissed as AI is picking normal language, that people use, and not using the vocabulary that is in vogue on certain political circles. Basically censure, and forced speech. If you had a model trained on a large…
I think this sort of veiled personal attack resorting to baseless extrapolation is not a productive line of public discourse.
You should take a step back and think about a) the field of study, b) how the main argument completely ignores the basis of said technical field and what it studies, c) how the argument being created lies on the idea that a self-annointed elite should have the right to manipulate the public to force it to fall in place with it's goals and desires.