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

#351

Post by qPM9l3XJrF » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:04 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #309

bartread wrote: post #158

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…

Your feelings are justified. I felt the same way as you two days ago. You might be interested to know that I’ve changed my mind. The reasons are documented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308233 Basically, every one of those arguments evaporates when you dig into the details. She was doing her job. The paper was anodyne and perhaps even boring. She was rightfully pissed off that some middle manager was t…

>Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google.

https://twitter.com/JeffDean/status/1334953632719011840

With regard to the internal review thing, I thought this comment made a good point: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k6467v/n_t... Sure, maybe Google is usually lax with internal reviews. But if you're going to write a paper which says "this area of research Google is engaging in is harmful", and neglect to mention the fact that Google is also doing research trying to address the harms, then from Google's perspective, you are just smearing its corporate brand without making any real progress.

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

#352

Post by matthewmacleod » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

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 an shameful comment to read on this matter regarding a real, well-known, and serious researcher. It’s the worst kind of tech-bro middlebrow dismissal that makes no interesting comment on the content in question beyond some ill-informed shallow analysis, and assumes that years of making half-baked shitty web-apps have somehow gifted you insight into AI ethics that’s enough to decide what research is “real” and what’s not - such that anyone who isn’t aligned with your high-school level of meta-philosophy is best ignored.

Your goal here wasn’t to make any useful point about how it was actually a reasonable decision for her to resign/be fired from Google. It wasn’t to comment on the process or difficulty of having these discussions at scale or in public, or even respond to the specific points raised in the article. These would all be valid discussions to have. It was specifically a personal attack based on a paper you haven’t actually read intended to demonstrate how much better you are than everyone else.

Absolutely done with this shit.

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

#353

Post by CuriouslyC » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:07 PM UTC

getlawgdon wrote: post #345

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…

"woke" has obviously become much more of a triggering dog-whistle for the reactionary, privileged right than a shibboleth for the left. your comments are not insightful to the issue but ironically they convey your character.

The stupidity of cancel culture and college kids screaming "shame" at history professors for an entire lecture because he didn't spend enough time pontificating on white privilege throughout the ages have made a mockery of civil rights activism. How do they expect to change people's minds when they're constantly making enemies?

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

#354

Post by tomp » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:09 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #326

tomp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> what’s the issue with “globalist” It's a white-supremacist dog whistle for "jew": https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-gl... > the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad” For a person of color who wants to wash their hand and sees that it dispenses soap for white people but not for them it is yet another piece of everyday racism.

I think that “dog-whistle” is a dog-whistle for wokeist people who prefer to insult others as racists instead of making actual rational arguments.

As for “globalist”, I don’t see an issue with criticising globalism and those who promote it, be they Jews or others. Clearly a lot of Jews (in Israel) are very “localist”, and I suppose there are some that are “globalist” as well. So?

Just because a view is also supported by some or other “vile” people (that are almost always a tiny minority, if disproportionately loud and/or salient), doesn’t make that view invalid or immoral.

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

#355

Post by tmotwu » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

mustuhfa wrote: post #346

tmotwu wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334877710477385728 2. How was LeCun harmed? As far as I'm concerned, he accepted the feedback. And just so we're clear on what happened then - Gebru was only one of many with qualifications who were aggressively critical because of his abdication of research responsibilities. I don't know why you're so focused on Gebru in particular. 3. Yes, if this was about performance, he…

1. Again, Managers are not the only person nor do they have to wait for someone’s direct manager to fire someone. If someone’s behavior is not acceptable, anyone authorized person in the company can fire them. Your link is irrelevant to facts. 2. Do you really think lecun wouldn’t have left Twitter if he didn’t find that conversation enjoyable? Do you discount the many other people who found her interactions with lec…

That’s not the point. Being removed by executives you rarely interact with because they want you to retract a paper is extremely suspicious. And the community has responded with disappointment.

You are the only person postulating the intention of her firing. I am merely calling out your assumptions because the consensus from the entire community involved has declared otherwise.

Most other people who found her refutations horrible are outsiders who don’t fully grasp the topic LeCun and Gebru and everyone else was alluding to.

Who are the respected in the industry that are against her? Not even LeCun, who has said he thinks her work is important. Nothing in your post has facts at all.

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

#356

Post by randomsearch » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

Niksko wrote: post #341

whatthesmack wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like all of the actions to "rectify" the aforementioned issues clearly involve threats to democracy and free speech. 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. F…

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. The only people that are 'frightened' by equality are those that have historically benefited from the lack of equality.

I’ve heard this stock answer many many times before. “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.”

By this token, an authoritarian state has freedom of speech - say what you want, but don’t complain when you’re imprisoned or shot for it.

This political slogan does not logically imply that all consequences people choose to deal out are therefore somehow justifiable. Specifically, it does not give people permission to take action to curtail freedom of speech, which is precisely what is happening.

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

#357

Post by free_rms » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #309

bartread wrote: post #158

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…

Your feelings are justified. I felt the same way as you two days ago. You might be interested to know that I’ve changed my mind. The reasons are documented here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25308233 Basically, every one of those arguments evaporates when you dig into the details. She was doing her job. The paper was anodyne and perhaps even boring. She was rightfully pissed off that some middle manager was t…

The paper sounds boring, though.

She hits some boring bureaucratic resistance, lost her shit, called everyone racist and gave ultimatums. She chose this hill to die on.

If she were uncovering some major ethical scandal, I'd be on her side, but this?

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

#358

Post by jka » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:19 PM 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…

It's generally difficult and requires a strong spine to stand up for causes that you believe are important, particularly when doing so involves personal costs in terms of opportunity.

Suffragettes battled hard to allow women to vote, for example. While reading your comment I wondered whether you would have considered their movement to be "woke" at the time.

For their part, Google likely truly does try hard to behave ethically because it tends to be good for their image and business.

But it may also be true that there are dangers and risks involved in AI research that Timnit (as an expert in the field) believes have the capacity to perpetuate inequality on a long timescale.

You state that a sense of urgency around that indicates an ideology. I'd suggest that almost everyone who participates actively in the kind of liberal democracy you defend requires some kind of ideology to guide their decision-making.

The most trustworthy people may adjust and refine their ideology when faced with contradicting facts and evidence, and to do so they may need to understand and reason about those counter-arguments.

There seems to be an underlying sense in some of these threads that the financial and technological setbacks that the tech industry might suffer as a result of adopting more ethical policies and listening to employee concerns wouldn't be worth the cost.

There is less discussion and optimism, for some reason, about what the benefits of a happier and more transparently equitable work environment would be.

Speaking of ideologies, I think this hints at a sense of company loyalty and perhaps national loyalty, with a possible fear that criticisms may be a form of subversion, accidental or malign.

Those loyalties and suspicions may help the participating groups succeed, or could equally lead to their failure if the surrounding environment changes. That is, perhaps, the market at work.

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

#359

Post by onedognight » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #340

IanCal wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they not being paid for their notice period? Usually the way this works is "gardening leave" where you're paid and are not supposed to come into work.

Her manager said "effective today". That means no gardening leave.

If she was cut off without “gardening leave”, then she was fired. It can then be true that she both quit (two weeks notice) and she was fired (no two weeks for you). I’d be surprised if the latter was true as it would be petty on Google’s part. More likely would be gardening without access which would still be gardening.

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

#360

Post by wwarner » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:19 PM 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…

No. She was accused of doing shoddy research and was fired for that reason, not her point of view, therefore evaluating the research is the only relevant issue. I welcome this second opinion on the paper and in fact this article changed my opinion. I really am blown away by the energy cost of building these models, and would love to hear that the numbers in the paper are just way way off. I realize that very few models like this are built, but as Gebru points out, that also introduces bias and the problem of verifying the integrity of the process. I don't have to agree that NLP is racist, or that capitalism is racist to find value in this paper. And it certainly is true that what many take to be inevitable in technology is in fact a choice, so attacking and questioning fundamental assumptions is a very important part of moving into the future.