Live data from Hacker News

We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

technologyreview.com

451–460 of 683 posts

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

#451
post #446
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The soap dispenser clearly didn’t have racist thoughts. But it effectively worked worse for black people, so it has racially discriminatory effects. I don’t think there’s much to argue about here. Also, I believe it’s best not to accuse your interlocutor of lacking intellectual honesty unless the evidence is very clear. Perhaps they just see the world differently to you.

algorithm is biased => we should fix it is reasonable, but also a misrepresentation of the argument that this whole thread is about, which is more along the lines of algorithm is biased => researchers are racist => the company that employs them is racist => the whole country is racist which definitely is driven more by ideology than reason. I’m happy about people viewing the world differently and having an honest, go…

OK, dude - if you really think I'm arguing in bad faith, I will just leave you to it!

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

#452
post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 refutat…

Again, you are assuming that this incident was the only thing that led to her firing. If she behaves like this in public, how does she behave and interact with individuals inside the company? It doesnt matter if she interacts with senior management. If I saw someone i never interacted with harass someone, as a manager, should I just let her direct manager deal with it? Absolutely not. HR would fire that person if it…

I am only working with what has been corroborated by Google, her teammates, and Dean. There has been no indication whatsoever, thus far, by any account - anonymous or not - of her interactions OR behaviors being problematic in any sense with any single individual. Now, you have gone as far as making up imaginary hypotheticals and blatant accusations - that not a single person has made - of harassment. You are not a person who argues facts - only personal biases and feelings about how you perceive a twitter conversation went down - one that peacefully discontinued.

How can you objectively comment on her behavior if you have never interacted with the person ever?

This has been discussed in prior threads. A manager is well within his rights to act upon his decisions emotionally. Employees are well within their rights to express concern. If I work in a workplace with severe safety issues, I would most definitely demand an ultimatum for my personal occupational security. Managers DO NOT impulsively fire individuals unless they are mentally unable to navigate through a conflict. It's far more nuanced than that.

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

#453
post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

I'm less cynical about this as a concept. Would you feel differently if, say, Apple hired a "Privacy Watchdog", with a long history of activism on the topic? Someone you could trust to speak out if something was amiss. If the person is later fired, that's a sign that something is wrong at the company. But if they stay , and have generally good things to say, that's a sign the company can be trusted. I do think this i…

I think that works if there's a clear way to distinguish the hypothetical privacy watchdog leaving/getting fired due to issues with the privacy program, versus leaving/getting fired for other reasons. Making that distinction, imo, seems to be the core disagreement with the current Google issue, at least among all of us commenting on the outside.

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

#454
post #410

AI ethics research is funny. It's obviously important but it's also kind of ... obvious. I am surprised they get paid so much. * Lots of processing uses more energy.. * Large amounts of data might contain bad data (garbage in, garbage out) * Wealthy countries/communities have the most 'content' online so less wealthy countries/communities will be unrepresented. here's some more: * AI being forced to chose between two…

It's always obvious in hindsight, much like what can be said of something like Dijkstra's algorithm, but the fact of the matter is not everyone can spend the energy to both understand the context of the problem and direct their attention towards the evaluation of ethics within that context. Some people even find it hard to understand the situations of others enough to identify where their technologies can be used for harm.

The problem that AI ethics research addresses are ethical problems that executives and employees aren't paying attention to. It may seem obvious when stated explicitly because of the amount of ease it takes to grasp the concepts (and the seemingly simple derivation of cause and effect relationships), but I assure you it is not obvious to a lot of people I know in the field at least.

There's also a clear misunderstanding of what ethics research should entail:

* AI being forced to chose between two "bad" scenarios will result in an unfavorable outcome for one party

This is a trivial result that doesn't hold much value as a standalone observation and probably wouldn't be touted as a research point in a respectable publication of AI ethics.

* AI could reveal truths people don't want to hear e.g. it might say the best team for a project is an all white male team between 25 - 30 rather than a more diverse team. It might say that a 'perfect' society needs a homogeneous population.

The fact that you made this comment may be a cause for an ethics discussion in itself. You used "truths" to describe the statement "the best team for a project is an all white male team between 25 - 30 rather than a more diverse team." This shows a disregard for the reality that most data is contextualized and biased. Using terms like "best team" and "more diverse team" make the statement like the one you made at risk for having took a misguided conclusion from data.

Maybe the following revised statement would be closer to what we can call a contextualized "truth" generated by an ML model:

"Teams that comprise of white males between 25 - 30 have a statistically larger chance of meeting milestones set by leadership rather than teams with one or more non-white male."

Even statements like that aren't complete as my definition of "meeting milestones" could be sourced from self-reported data (in which case it could mean that white males just self-report more milestone completions).

* AI could disrupt a lot of lower paid jobs first without governments having proper supports and retraining structures in place

A problem to consider, sure, but this is one of the more popular observations and has been echoed over time within the context of technological advancements in general.

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

#455

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…

> Because, as far as I can tell, the entire AI community is now on her side Oh because how dare people judge. You would be instantly taken to court of public opinion for talking down a black female, AI, ethics, researcher. If people have opposite opinion, they would keep it to themselves. But saying the entire AI community had rallied behind her is wrong.

I've been hoping to address that point, actually. Because, I get where you're coming from, and I've felt those frustrations myself. Let's just say I'm probably the last person to hop on the "do what I say or else" bandwagon.

... but like everything else, that turns out not to be an issue here. I would feel fine saying what you said. It's nothing to do with the color of her skin, or the fact that she was working on ethics rather than optimizers. Horrible employees who cause drama wherever they go are a liability and a downer, and I'll happily say that to whoever's listening. Black or white or purple, the goal is to serve the company's business interests.

But, much to my own surprise, as someone who grew up memeing on 4chan and poking fun at leftist dogma, here I am after about a year and a half of ML, wondering "Where's my harassment? I was promised harassment."

Because I feel exactly the opposite. Not only is everyone in the ML twitter scene cool, but they're some of the most open minded people I've ever met. Sure, you get some people showing up sometimes to give you a hard time, e.g. when we train danbooru: https://i.imgur.com/RMZd6mu.png and then say that the dataset is very objectifying, and so on.

But the antidote is to simply be straightforward. Make it clear you actually hear them. "Yes, I am concerned about that, but it's simply the problem domain; people use danbooru as a repository of this content. You're right that we could e.g. make a classifier to pick out the cooler looking gals and focus on those, but the challenge is simply to solve the problem at all. Once we have lovely auto-generated anime, it'll be straightforward to filter it. Come help us get there! It's fun!"

With all the horror stories I've heard, and how afraid everyone is of "the mob," I went into it expecting to "smile, and don't tell them what you're thinking." And I was really surprised to find exactly the opposite atmosphere. Everyone pretty much agrees that yeah, we have a bias problem, and that it's probably good to address that. People also seem to agree that it's ridiculous to take it too far, e.g. when OpenAI enforces a mandatory content filter that you can't turn off and isn't too choosy about what it deems harmful, and prevents you from shipping to production unless you enable it.

So I'm just scratching my head like ... "am I the baddie?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU&ab_channel=roots...

Because I'd be a part of the problem, if you felt like you can't talk to me freely (at least in private). I don't want to foster that kind of environment. So my reaction of the idea of you "talking down a black female, AI, ethics researcher" is "Y'know, I see where you're coming from, and I was worried about the same thing, but I'm just not getting that sort of vibe at all. I was surprised too; I expected the opposite."

And once you relax about it and look around, the most interesting part to me is that you start to feel like "well... why look at whether she's a black, female, AI, ethics researcher? I should probably read her work and listen to what she's saying, and judge for myself whether it seems crazy." And when you sit down and really listen to people, and put your full mental focus on what they are saying, I find it hard to disagree with a lot of their points, simply from a logical perspective.

So you might argue "Well, you're just part of that culture then. You'd be appalled how I feel, but I'll keep that to myself." Fair. But it's so weird being in a situation where everyone is like "watch out for that mob!" and meanwhile all of the people who actually work in the field seem pretty cool to me.

Everyone feels equally lost, i.e. that we have this magical new power (ML) that we don't really know what to do with. We know it will affect society, but we don't know how it will affect society. We also don't know the best ways to guard against some of the obvious problems on the horizon.

I ran into that problem myself. Since I'm already on a ramble, I may as well lay it all out, because it really is interesting: I was training some FFHQ latent directions, trying to get a skin color working. And I ended up discovering, quite by accident, that my latent vectors were "racist." My model was generating caricatures of black people that I would not be comfortable showing. And I couldn't figure out why. Why black people? I flip the skin color to white, no problem. Flip it to asian, no problem: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1184074334186414080

Flip it to black, and horrible results. (I mean "horrible" as in "this would be an especially bad idea to show anyone," rather than merely "it has some visual defects.")

The answer to this mystery was obvious, but only in hindsight. There are far fewer black people in FFHQ than whites or asians. I found a classifier, got it to identify an order of magnitude more black faces than I had before, retrained my model, and the result was instantly so much better: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1209749009092493312

That experience stayed with me to this day. I think about it a lot, because it would be so easy to overlook that kind of bias when it's numerical data rather than facial data. And as far as I can tell, that's exactly the sort of ethics that Timnit has been arguing for: we need to pay more attention to bias, and unexpected ways that bias can creep in. Which seems reasonable to me.

I don't really know why I'm posting this to you, but, just in case it changes your mind, I leave it to you. I really thought I'd end up feeling every bit as pinched as you expressed, yet it's nothing like that. Felt quite the opposite. I keep re-reading http://paulgraham.com/orth.html wondering if I have orthodox privilege, or if my social group simply doesn't include people who are comfortable enough to express themselves around me, or what. Because you say that there is a massive number of people who feel exactly the opposite, and I can't help feeling curious where they are. Our discord's up to 1200 people, and they don't seem to be there. I talk to dozens of researchers, sometimes on a weekly basis, just to poke my head in and see what they're up to. They don't seem to be there either, even in private. And, picture someone who is the opposite of "leftist" in basically every way. I know a few people like that in the ML scene, and even they don't seem to be saying "whoa, this bias stuff has gone too far, and these ethics concerns are nonsense." It's the opposite. Eleuther has a dedicated ethics channel, people spend a lot of time freely debating about what the "right" ideas might look like, and so on. We also maintain internal research channels with the idea that, if people have concerns of the type you mention, they can freely express themselves there with no fear of any kind of retribution -- that's the whole point of having secret research channels. It's up to ~30 or so active researchers, and no one has brought up concerns like that.

So you see, I end up being dragged to the conclusion that, yes, the politics / activism stuff is a concern, but no, it doesn't seem to be affecting anything. We're not hearing "do this or I'll bite your face off," or something nuts like that. It's more like "Could you please listen to me for a bit? I have this experience I'd like to share." And the experiences tend to be interesting, at least to me.

So that's why I urge you to be super skeptical about the angle you mention. ("You'd be instantly taken to court of public opinion...") Dig into the situation and look for evidence of that yourself. Don't pay attention to newspapers; talk to researchers, and ask them how they feel about it. I just can't find any trace, no matter how hard I look. I feel if you also look, in a scientific way, for evidence to support your concerns, that you might not find it either.

Anyway. I related to what you were saying and just wanted to give perhaps a new way of looking at it, since it's what changed my mind. Feel free to hit me up in twitter DMs if you're looking for someone to chat with about some hard topics, since those are often the interesting ones.

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

#456
post #446
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The soap dispenser clearly didn’t have racist thoughts. But it effectively worked worse for black people, so it has racially discriminatory effects. I don’t think there’s much to argue about here. Also, I believe it’s best not to accuse your interlocutor of lacking intellectual honesty unless the evidence is very clear. Perhaps they just see the world differently to you.

algorithm is biased => we should fix it is reasonable, but also a misrepresentation of the argument that this whole thread is about, which is more along the lines of algorithm is biased => researchers are racist => the company that employs them is racist => the whole country is racist which definitely is driven more by ideology than reason. I’m happy about people viewing the world differently and having an honest, go…

> researchers are racist

I never argued for that. My point is that researchers (as well as everyone!) have biases, which may manifest in the end as racism or other forms of discriminations. To prevent these biases from manifesting, (AI) ethics experts are needed as oversight.

> the company that employs them is racist

To take the example of the "racist soap dispenser" again: while the individual people who have developed it may not have been racist, they have failed to think outside their biases and ask themselves "can people with non-white skin use the product?". Also, management has failed here, because more diverse staff would have resulted in at least one internal test candidate of color noticing "hey, I can't get soap!".

The result of this lack of diversity and out-of-the-ordinary thinking was that a person of color was rightfully offended at not being dispensed soap. Therefore, the company acted racist even if it never intended to do so.

> the whole country is racist

Just short of half of the country recently elected a President who openly spouted white-supremacist conspiracy theories. For half the people in the US racism is not a dealbreaker for the highest office it has to offer!

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

#457
Not totally on topic, but on threads about researchers, I see this trend that when we're talking about a male researcher we only mention the family name but when talking about a female researcher we're using mostly the first name.

Case in point, at time of writing there are 26 mentions of "Timnit" vs 16 mentions of "Gebru" on this thread.

I don't think there are bad intentions behind this, but it really comes off as infantilizing so maybe we'd be better off calling her "Gebru"?

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

#458

Of course that Jeff Dean is white, male and I presume hetero, coming from (I also presume) at least a middle-class family, there's no chance he will understand the fact that > AI-generated language will be homogenized, reflecting the practices of the richest countries and communities. because this hasn't ever had any negative effect on him or on the people which he represents. Bonus points for him being "revered" for…

> I presume hetero

?

> coming from (I also presume) at least a middle-class family

?

That's quite a lot of presumptions.

I note in passing the asymmetry of the use of homo and hetero – the former is offensive, the latter is informal, interesting no? How'd that come about?

––

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/homo

[2] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hetero

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

#459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

She was not fired. She offered to resign if her demands were not met.

The only difference is that the timeline was not of her choosing. She knew exactly what she was gambling for when she wrote those words. Why would Google want someone around who doesn’t want to work at Google? Better to accept their resignation and let them go immediately. It happens all the time. I once gave 2 weeks notice and my boss said I might as well leave immediately since there was no point in hanging around (I was consulting and on the bench). It happens.

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

#460
post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

I've always found it funny how we treat companies like Google as imaginary people with no single individual bearing responsibility.

To be fair, some people are aware of the people involved like Jeff Dean, but I look forward to a shift in the future where individuals within companies are as popular and held to the same standards as individuals within politics. Some of these corporate individuals already seem to have just as much power so hopefully it doesn't stand to be too much of a stretch in an ideological vision for the future.

With respect to this particular case of Timnit Gebru, it sounds like she was already on her way to being let go. From reading her Twitter, it seems like she has a flair for the dramatic which could make her critiques of people potentially come off as needlessly harsh and unconstructive. Whether that's good grounds to fire her may only be known to those within the company who interacted with her most I guess.

Post reply on HN