261–270 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen or read her toxic behavior online?
If her behavior is "toxic", who has it harmed?
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…
For example, the far-left "woke" interpretation has historically made use of and encouraged "cancel culture" to punish people that disagree with that worldview, which deprives them of their right to free speech. This is not imagined -- many people's lives have been destroyed because of this. Free speech is not just the First Amendment in the US... it is a tradition upheld in a plethora of ways, public and private.
In addition, not everybody agrees with the theory of inherent privilege, as it's often used to overlook or devalue the hard work of others with whom one disagrees.
Many people of all backgrounds are frightened by what they are seeing of the far-left "woke" view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Censorship Man, people really do want to have their cake and eat it too. If you want to publish research freely join an academic research lab, if you value money join an industry lab. You can't have both of those things.
She was the technical co-lead of Google's Ethical AI team, publishing papers like this was exactly what she was hired to do. Here's Google's Principles for Artificial Intelligence https://ai.google/principles/ From the second paragraph of item 6: "We will work with a range of stakeholders to promote thoughtful leadership in this area, drawing on scientifically rigorous and multidisciplinary approaches. And we will re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If her behavior is "toxic", who has it harmed?
Have you read her exchange with Lecun and the impact it had? Edit - Also, if her behavior online is like that, imagine what its like inside Google? Have you thought about that? Clearly her email to the brain group was an issue here, i wonder how it compared to her exchange with lecun? One final edit, even her co-authors were not ready for publishing the paper (per article), so why is the reason of censorship, supress…
https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1277372578231996424
saying:
"Following my posts of the last week, I'd like to ask everyone to please stop attacking each other via Twitter or other means. In particular, I'd like everyone to please stop attacking @timnitGebru and everyone who has been critical of my posts."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you accuse someone of pretending to be an "AI ethics researcher" (...) You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills. To start off, be aware that "a bullshit social engineer masquerading as a AI research" does not, by any means, mean the author is "pretending to be an AI researcher".
masquerade /ˌmɑːskəˈreɪd,ˌmaskəˈreɪd/ pretend to be someone one is not.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masquerade
"an action or appearance that is mere disguise or show"
As in social engineering masquerading as AI research?
Honestly, is there any room for doubt at this stage?
I don't expect honest and well-meaning people to continue insisting on this at this point. It feels that these attempts to distort what was said are simply attempts to attack the OP based on misreprentations of what he did said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read her exchange with Lecun and the impact it had? Edit - Also, if her behavior online is like that, imagine what its like inside Google? Have you thought about that? Clearly her email to the brain group was an issue here, i wonder how it compared to her exchange with lecun? One final edit, even her co-authors were not ready for publishing the paper (per article), so why is the reason of censorship, supress…
Given that she seems relatively popular within Brain - more importantly her collaborators and direct manager, why should we assume she fostered a toxic work environment with those around her? More like, it appears the people who wanted her out were leadership and a set of anonymous PR/IP reviewers she does not know.
So yes, there is more evidence for her toxic behavior than there is for her ability deal with disagreements professionally and work in a team environment.
TBH, I think this whole review things is just a reason for google letting her go. They were probably looking for a reason and she using her threatening (aka toxic) nature was just what google needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you read her exchange with Lecun and the impact it had? Edit - Also, if her behavior online is like that, imagine what its like inside Google? Have you thought about that? Clearly her email to the brain group was an issue here, i wonder how it compared to her exchange with lecun? One final edit, even her co-authors were not ready for publishing the paper (per article), so why is the reason of censorship, supress…
You mean when Lecun left Twitter explicitly saying people should stop critiquing Gebru? https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1277372578231996424 saying: "Following my posts of the last week, I'd like to ask everyone to please stop attacking each other via Twitter or other means. In particular, I'd like everyone to please stop attacking @timnitGebru and everyone who has been critical of my posts."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re making a weaker version of this argument than you need to, because you’re framing it in terms that oppose the politics of half of the public, when you really only need to argue against a much more specific set of ideas. For example: > 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 censu…
> Furthermore, even if humans are constantly updating an expert system, the biases inherent in the composition of the company-hired set of experts will limit the representation of minority trends in the data. Exactly this. Framing it in terms of alternate options makes AI the more reasonable choice. Google AI appears to have drawn unnecessary attention to themselves for relatively benign paper. Most of the arguments…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about her toxic behavior? Do you dispute that?
Toxic is an inflammatory and unnecessary word to use when no-one is privy to the actual facts.
This response reflects an unwillingness to understand a situational nuance from multiple sides, show empathy to a person in distres and offers no workarounds, support or evidence. I've grown so tired of these factual tug of wars to justify callous.
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…
Please define "often". And "offensive" (as in to whom). And of course, you also need to factor in whether being offended is justified.
As an extreme counterexample, a deeply racist person would be offended by a mixed couple. And racists on both sides currently are. I see no reason whatsoever to pander to either side on this, so just there being someone who is or claims to be offended is no guide.
If you find "globalist" offensive, then you are the problem. And, the vast majority of Americans are find this type of PC culture and social justice activism offensive, including the vast majority of "marginalized" groups.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...
In fact, the only group marginally in favor are white, rich and highly educated. Hmm...