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

#481

Post by vmception » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

jpm_sd wrote: 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…

Anybody that publicly says their corporation is gaslighting them won’t be staying at that corporation

It doesn’t matter the topic that’s the outcome

Not to mention healthier for everyone involved

Google employees are way too comfortable with that message board they have over there

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

#482

Post by chishaku » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #475

nathanlied wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed; but this isn't just a Google problem. Seems to me like a lot of SF (and SF-inspired) "big tech" wants to be known for their "wokeness"[1], which leads to hires like Timnit and other "politically-outspoken" people, which in turn leads to situations like this, James Damore, and other individuals/situations that amount to workplace political activism. I am wholly uncomfortable with any discussion of politics in…

The problem here is that AI and race now intersect in non trivial ways. It’s like having privacy as political discourse when you are scanning emails for marketing purposes. There’s a line at which not having the discussion is equivalent to taking a political stance.

This. And since certain companies/industries pose a certain "systemic risk," failing to self-regulate might lead to external regulation later.

For example, legislation on AI, predictive models, and facial recognition in policing.

Who knows, we could see limits on the use of imperfect models in other areas.

After all, there is no "market solution" for ethics.

https://mathbabe.org/2013/11/12/there-is-no-market-solution-...

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

#483

Post by thinkingemote » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #370

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…

A bit of a mixup I think. Good to clarify it. The Google walkout blog demands all research needs reform (but no stop) but the email did specify that specific field to stop.

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

#484

Post by zepto » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #196

hezag wrote: post #49

I did not read the paper (just like most people here), but by the title — “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” — it does not look like the CO2 emissions thing is the main topic of this research. BTW, "Stochastic Parrots" is a very descriptive name for the problem > Moreover, because the training datasets are so large, it’s hard to audit them to check for these embedded biases. “A me…

> BTW, "Stochastic Parrots" is a very descriptive name for the problem Meh, both parrots and language models are inferior to humans in producing language, but one is more useful than the other. And real parrots are also stochastic, like all living things.

Real parrots are clearly more useful.

After the stochastic parrots have caused the collapse of civilization, we can eat the real parrots.

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

#485

Post by albntomat0 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #477

albntomat0 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It seems like that is always going to be a problem, since if the person is getting fired critiquing the thing they are there to critique, the company will always have a huge incentive to present another explanation.

I think we agree on the difficulty here. I believe the reverse is also true: if the person is fired for a legitimate, non-watchdog reason, they have an incentive to say the firing was due to them bring up privacy/ethics concerns.

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

#486

Post by lokar » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

Veedrac wrote: post #472

hezag wrote: post #49

I did not read the paper (just like most people here), but by the title — “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” — it does not look like the CO2 emissions thing is the main topic of this research. BTW, "Stochastic Parrots" is a very descriptive name for the problem > Moreover, because the training datasets are so large, it’s hard to audit them to check for these embedded biases. “A me…

The first page was leaked. The environmental angle was a significant part of it, particularly the claim that environmental and financial costs ‘doubly punishes marginalized communities’.

Didn't google get to carbon neutral?

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

#487

Post by kenjackson » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

tinyhouse wrote: post #377

Last comment about it since I spent too much time on this story. As a researcher in the field I feel bad people don't give Google more credit (I have no affiliation with Google). They created a research environment where researchers have freedom to work on their own interests and publish papers (they publish more than any other company). You don't find many environments like that outside of academia. I still remember…

This is a poor argument assuming discriminatory practices are happening there. This is like giving Weinstein a free pass because his movies are really good.

Note, I’m not saying Google discriminates, but if they do then your statement doesn’t contribute to their defense.

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

#488

Post by tomp » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:11 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #456

tomp wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 devel…

> For half the people in the US racism is not a dealbreaker for the highest office it has to offer!

For the other half, sexism isn’t. (Biden selected his vice-president on the basis of sex.)

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

#489

Post by free_rms » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #371

choeger wrote: post #201

While I will not dive into the extremes here, this is yet another battle in the fight over language, right? The most important point of criticism seems to be that the language models are "unethical", i.e., not subject to control by a particular political standard. Am I the only one that finds this line of argumentation highly troubling? The idea that once you do something with language there should be someone proacti…

Funny to equate ethics and politics...

One way to define politics is "difference of opinion over ethics".

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

#490

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #449

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's a difficult type of role. See the NYT getting rid of its public editor/ombudsman.[1] I'd actually have trouble seeing Apple hiring someone like that given how tightly they control external messaging/speaking/etc. It's really hard for execs, including but not limited to PR, to have worked really hard on getting some message/narrative accepted by the media/analysts/etc. and then have a high profile employee on soc…

> I think anyone who takes that kind of role has to understand they'll be a lightning rod, feel passionate about it anyway, and understand they may well eventually set off a tripwire and be fired in a very public and humiliating way.

Oh, absolutely—that’s practically a part of their job description!