181–190 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you threaten to resign, I don't think you should complain if the other side says "ok".
They can't accept the threat itself as a resignation. That's not how threats work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Do you dispute her ultimatum and/or offer to resign?
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.
The significance of their job is imagined at best, borderline academic welfare. Guess that is why Google can make the choice to remove her this quickly. They lose nothing but face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This sounds a lot like taking what Google said without including Timnit’s point of view. Not at all. I've read everything she's written on the issue including the long message she wrote to the brain group, and her tweets where she shared what Google said when they accepted her resignation. These latter make specific reference to the ultimatum, which was the ultimate reason for her departure. As I pointed out in the…
…and? Did you not consider it useful to mention at all? Do you think you’ve already included what she mentioned?
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…
The thing is: The language that people use is often enough offensive: racial slurs, sexism and other forms of discrimination, plus seemingly innocent "code words" like "globalist".
AI developers should know about these problems and keep them in mind while developing training data for AI models. The consequences of ignoring such bias is continuing discrimination - with the most obvious and low-tech reminder being the "racist soap dispenser" which had only been trained on white people's skin and failed to dispense soap for people of color.
The danger in such discriminatory models is that while it's an annoyance that a soap dispenser does not dispense soap for a person of color, with algorithms running more and more of our daily lives, the impact is way higher: whether being refused credit or affordable insurance rates because an AI "thinks" the applicant is black and living in a black, poor neighborhood is grounds enough for that, or "predictive policing" AIs sending in massive police responses to everyday calls, this directly hits on people's survival without human oversight.
That is why ethics in AI are so important and why "social justice activism" is so desperately needed!
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…
Her previous papers look pretty serious to me, along with her resume. I see nothing to suggest she's not qualified. https://ai.stanford.edu/~tgebru/
Your argument sounds like a red herring. Qualified for what? I didn't noticed the OP making any remark on the author's qualifications.
And by the way, you should think things through before pulling appeals to authority to try to defend the credibility of researchers. See James Watson, a nobel laureate and a founder of modern genetics, and his comments on race and gender.
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…
Timnit says she was fired: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334352694664957952
Jeff Dean's email says the article was "approved", though clearly not approved enough: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...
Other researchers at Google say that this level of scrutiny is highly unusual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25307618
So in fact it is you that is twisting the narrative by asserting that the truth is publicly known, and that it is exactly as Google describes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>-- 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…
> It seems to me that it would be impossible to do any social science research, and specifically any research on racism. With this kind of attitude. 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…
I thought that my comment was fitting to the tone of the text I replied too, but fair enough, maybe I shouldn't have included that paragraph.
> 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.
It is unclear to me what this means, is it arguing that studying bias in AI and specifically deep learning is not germane? Is it arguing that it is not acceptable to institute policies and action to create a level playing field for minorities and repressed group because that would be social engineering, and forcing the common man to do the elites bidding? If that is what it means, I have to disagree, I find both of those things worthwhile.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Her previous papers look pretty serious to me, along with her resume. I see nothing to suggest she's not qualified. https://ai.stanford.edu/~tgebru/
> I see nothing to suggest she's not qualified. Your argument sounds like a red herring. Qualified for what? I didn't noticed the OP making any remark on the author's qualifications. And by the way, you should think things through before pulling appeals to authority to try to defend the credibility of researchers. See James Watson, a nobel laureate and a founder of modern genetics, and his comments on race and gender…
Did you not read the first sentence of OP's post?
"Ok, so basically she is a bullshit social engineer, masquerading as an 'AI ethics researcher'"