We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google • Hacker News Board

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#221

Post by vonseel » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

einarfd wrote: post #155

ardit33 wrote: post #125

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…

The social engineering and woke culture stuff seems like a moot point honestly.

If the large language model analyzes everything, it will veer towards normal. It doesn’t seem so far fetched to think they can build something which also tracks and understands language trends and slang, and how to appropriately use this “special vocabulary”.

I don’t know much about how these models work, but I would hope something trained on the entire internet is smart enough to know to speak to me in modern English, not Civil War English or Shakespeare English.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#222

Post by mustuhfa » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:12 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #181

muro wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you threaten to resign, I don't think you should complain if the other side says "ok".

But it's still up to you to resign at that point, or to back down. They can't accept the threat itself as a resignation. That's not how threats work.

I really dont understand this logic.

Firstly, there is ample evidence of her toxic behaviour online. (See the exchange with lecun on twitter, absolutely horrible). So its clear she has issues with how to collaborate and communicate.

She then goes on to threaten the company she works for. Like wtf? Irrespective of what you want to do in response, act like a professional. If you were a CEO/Manager etc and had someone with toxic behavior come in and threaten you if you didnt comply to their demands, wouldnt you go 'ok, see ya'. I certainly would. Everyone is replaceable. Especially if youre toxic when it comes to dealing with situations you dont agree with

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#223

Post by mustuhfa » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:13 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #182

the-dude wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you dispute her ultimatum and/or offer to resign?

Do I dispute that she provided an ultimatum of which one side was a resignation offer? No. But can I say that this ultimatum wasn’t the result of Google pulling the rug out from under her and putting her in an unfortunate position from which she felt her only way to exercise her leverage was to make such a proposition, then pretend like they’re blameless by “choosing a provided option” of terminating her without look…

What about her toxic behavior? Do you dispute that?

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#224

Post by lsiebert » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:13 AM UTC

Ultimately this reads as straight censorship by Google. Or if not by Google, by Google employees, with the tacit approval of their higher ups.

They didn't like the viewpoint she expressed, didn't like the criticisms she raised, so they blocked her (well her and 7 co-author's) paper. When she said that was unacceptable and stood her ground, they badmouthed her and fired her.

You don't have to agree with the paper's criticisms (and it appears they were just part of a longer paper) to be concerned by viewpoint censorship. If the paper wasn't worthwhile or based on facts, then that would have come out in academic review, either in peer review in the paper, or in subsequent papers rebutting it, or pointing to subsequent changes. That's how academic inquiry works.

But if companies can silence ethics researchers who express concerns, whose job, as AI ethicists, is to express concerns, that fundamentally undermines academic inquiry into the topics at hand.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#225

Post by tomp » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #185

ardit33 wrote: post #125

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…

> 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. 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 proble…

I think your “social justice” cause(s) would be much better served if you didn’t make up problems where there are none (what’s the issue with “globalist”??) and didn’t project ill intent where there is none (the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad”).

It’s just basic intellectual honesty, sorely missing in the SJW circles.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#226

Post by mustuhfa » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #204

ardit33 wrote: post #125

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…

I am honestly disappointed to see this kind of response at the top of comments here. Every time we have some sort of social issue come up people here come in to pick apart the person involved, and I think it’s one of the bigger reasons why some maintain a generally negative view of Hacker News. Can you imagine being Timnit and stopping by this thread, where the top comment, in colorful language, reduces you to a soci…

Have you seen or read her toxic behavior online?

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#227

Post by mustuhfa » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:16 AM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #189

ardit33 wrote: post #125

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 is a co-written paper. It's interesting you focus on her, instead of suggesting that all of the 8 authors are social engineers, pissed etc.

Maybe because the whole issue is about her?

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#228

Post by the-dude » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:16 AM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #182

the-dude wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you dispute her ultimatum and/or offer to resign?

Do I dispute that she provided an ultimatum of which one side was a resignation offer? No. But can I say that this ultimatum wasn’t the result of Google pulling the rug out from under her and putting her in an unfortunate position from which she felt her only way to exercise her leverage was to make such a proposition, then pretend like they’re blameless by “choosing a provided option” of terminating her without look…

Do you feel we have not heard enough of her side of the story yet?

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#229

Post by mustuhfa » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:17 AM UTC

_cs2017_ wrote: post #131

ardit33 wrote: post #125

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…

Do you think the employer weren't aware they were hiring an activist?

Being an activist isnt the problem, her toxic behavior is. Im not sure Google were aware of her toxic behavior and the problems it would cause.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#230

Post by akie » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 11:19 AM UTC

mikaeluman wrote: post #219

The problem I find with this has much to do with character. I will not comment on the research (because I do not know the field) but rather comment on why character matters and why motivation is important. Having read her email and tweets; it is quite clear that she is as much a political activist for a far-left “woke” interpretation of the world that I view as of immediate threat to our way of living, democracy and…

> a far-left “woke” interpretation of the world that I view as of immediate threat to our way of living, democracy and free speech.

WTF dude.

The core argument as to what you say is a "woke" interpretation of the world is to reshape the world in such a way that inherent privilege (for example being rich, being white, being male) does not completely predetermine anyone's outcomes. So that you can still "make it" even if you don't start out as rich, if you're not white, or male. Basically, if you want to boil it down to slogans, it's "the American Dream for everyone". Or, equal opportunities – not equal outcomes.

I'm not sure why that is a immediate threat to democracy, free speech, or your way of living.