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

#361

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:20 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #350

akie wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think when people pull an episode of a TV show featuring an Asian man wearing make-up to play a dark elf due to fear of reprisal from race crusaders, we're in a bad place.

In the 90s and early 2000s it was quite common for TV shows that offended Christians in some way to be censored or cancelled by their network. This was due to letter writing campaigns by a small minority of Christians.

Is it fair of me to call Christianity a threat to democracy?

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

#362

Post by sillysaurusx » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:27 PM UTC

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #351

sillysaurusx wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resi…

The weird part is, the paper didn't seem to be saying that. It was mostly about energy usage, and bias in language models. The reviewer described it as "anodyne," which seems apt: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t...

I'd totally agree with you. That would indeed be ridiculous. But... It's strange... each time a new argument pops up, I dig into the new detail, and surprise: it seems to have a straightforward, boring answer. "This is a pretty standard paper. Google wouldn't have been hurt reputation-wise by letting it through. And we should probably be thinking more about energy usage and bias. She didn't namedrop all relevant research, but there doesn't seem to be anything here to demand a retraction over."

It only gets stranger when you take this into account, too. From the journal reviewer:

However, the authors had (and still have) many weeks to update the paper before publication. The email from Google implies (but carefully does not state) that the only solution was the paper's retraction. That was not the case.

In some parallel universe, Google could re-hire her, Jeff and her could sit down and hammer out the paper, send the updated version, and there would still be two weeks to make even more edits. Isn't the point of the edit window to address these problems?

What really got my attention though, was that she informed everyone months ago that her and her coauthors were writing this paper. She wasn't working on some hit piece of a research paper. It's just ... a standard survey of the current ML scene circa 2021. I read the abstract and go "Yup, we use a shitload of energy. Yup, we should have better tools for filtering training data -- I've wanted this for myself. Where's the bombshell?"

For all the fuss people are making, you'd expect the paper to be arguing that we should stop doing AI for the betterment of humanity, or something weird. But it's nothing like that.

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

#363

Post by adar » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:27 PM UTC

rualca wrote: post #265

drawfloat wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

masquerade /ˌmɑːskəˈreɪd,ˌmaskəˈreɪd/ pretend to be someone one is not.

Let's look at the dictionary, shall we? 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 attempt…

> If you take a step back and read the snippet you cherry-picked

Cherry-picked? It's literally the first sentence, the central thesis of OP's entire "argument". If they can't get that down on paper correctly, they're not worth taking seriously.

> You would do well to work on your literacy and reading comprehension skills.

Ascribing unsubstantiated sentiments to someone's post in lieu of what they actually said doesn't fall under literacy or reading comprehension, sorry. It's actually the polar opposite of that.

Why are you claiming to know OP's intentions (despite their own words) better than everyone else here? Is OP your alt account?

> 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.

It's extremely bizarre that you're questioning the literacy of people when you're projecting your own unsupported sentiment to OP's post while simultaneously claiming that people who are directly quoting the OP's post verbatim are "misrepresenting" what OP said.

You're being very disingenuous here (as well as borderline manipulative) by trying to shut down any dissent against your flawed position by questioning the good faith of the people doing nothing but directly quoting the OP's words.

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

#364

Post by vfclists » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

qPM9l3XJrF wrote: post #351

sillysaurusx wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 resi…

> 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.

This means the date of her leaving was not set in stone, ie both parties would agree to the date or a date when she would leave. She had a vacation coming up and they would discuss it when she returned from vacation.

>According to Ms Gebru, Google replied: "We respect your decision to leave Google... and we are accepting your resignation.

>"However, we believe the end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects because certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behaviour that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager."

She was fired, not on account of the content of her paper, but the way she expressed her feelings to her colleagues, which wasn't an exhortation for them lay down their tools, but because laying down their tools made no different as their work was ignored.

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

#365

Post by thinkingemote » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

Anyone else see the narrative on Twitter to be so much different than Reddit and hacker news?

On reddit and hacker news I have never seen any unconditional support for Timmit. Even amongst those anti Google and broadly in support of her, there's no whole agreement with all of what Timmit says; the assertion of her story, the reasons why and the conclusions.

that a. She was fired b. That she was fired because of sexism and racism and c. That all research at Google is pointless and should stop until reform.

On Twitter there is more vocal support, but here and Reddit even on those most critical of Google and behind Timmit, there's no entire agreement with her. There are comments supporting some parts but none supporting all, none agreeing with the Google Walkout document. Comments pointing out holes with official explanations but not supporting the conclusions.

Why is this? I find it odd, I would expect more unequivocal solidarity seen with less public visibility.

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

#366

Post by martingoodson » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

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…

‘she resigned of her own volition’.

That’s false - she, at most, threatened to resign.

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

#367

Post by Aunche » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

danielheath wrote: post #123

_cs2017_ wrote: post #116

Despite what both sides claim, IMHO papers like this are primarily PR, ideology, and politics, rather than science and technology. This is akin to a speech writer working for a politician, writing a piece that disagrees with the party platform, and refusing to fix it when asked.

She didn’t “refuse to fix it when asked”. She agreed with the proviso that she could have a meeting to figure out what she was and was not permitted to publish. The response was to decline to meet and fire her. It’s entirely plausible that the paper is bunk; however, when someone is willing to come down that hard to prevent an idea being published, I tend to err on the side of “worth finding out what”.

That's one interpretation of her demands. Mine is that she was preparing to shame the "privileged white men" who were blocking her.

https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824

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

#368

Post by CuriouslyC » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #361

CuriouslyC wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think when people pull an episode of a TV show featuring an Asian man wearing make-up to play a dark elf due to fear of reprisal from race crusaders, we're in a bad place.

In the 90s and early 2000s it was quite common for TV shows that offended Christians in some way to be censored or cancelled by their network. This was due to letter writing campaigns by a small minority of Christians. Is it fair of me to call Christianity a threat to democracy?

It isn't the Christianity so much as the ignorance, but yeah.

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

#369

Post by satyrnein » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

silveroriole wrote: post #263

lsiebert wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a megafarm hires you to write papers for the Ethical Milk Production team, any modicum of social awareness will tell you that they don’t actually want you to write a paper about the ethics of animal products.

Once you conclude they were just using you for good PR, what is your recourse (aside from compromising your ethics)? Bad PR.

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

#370

Post by geofft » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #365

Anyone else see the narrative on Twitter to be so much different than Reddit and hacker news? On reddit and hacker news I have never seen any unconditional support for Timmit. Even amongst those anti Google and broadly in support of her, there's no whole agreement with all of what Timmit says; the assertion of her story, the reasons why and the conclusions. that a. She was fired b. That she was fired because of sexis…

Er, who is claiming "all research at Google is pointless and should stop until reform"? Presumably not the person who was trying to do and publish research at Google?

(Are you confusing this with her email that said that participating in Google's feel-good diversity and inclusion work, specifically, was pointless and should stop, so that people could focus on their real jobs - such as research - instead of wasting time placating unknown managers?)

Anyway, my theory re your question is that Reddit and HN are usually pseudonymous, and so you have no idea whether the person saying something actually knows anything about Google or actually participates in the industry. The norm on Twitter is to use your real identity, and so comments from Googlers and ex-Googlers are boosted there. On Reddit and HN, good-sounding first-principles arguments are boosted. The two models are better at different kinds of discussions.