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

#551

Post by pabl0rg » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

Maybe the real problem with the paper is that it points out that GPT-3 and the like can completely distort search results by filling the web with auto-generated spam. Botnets could link spam pages to each other and even generate traffic. If that got into the wrong hands, we would be unable to distinguish truth from fiction.

If the general public heard of this, Google’s stock price might be hurt. In such a bot-filled world, humans might prefer to start their searches in walled-gardens or on sites that could better-validate content.

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

#552

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #66

hezag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was little disappointed in the quality of this research But the research is not even published yet

Kinda the point though isn't it? We're only reading a summary of the paper because apparently the authors aren't confident enough in its quality to release it publicly. You can't claim that Google dismissed this paper out-of-hand while simultaneously saying "oh, but it's too much of a draft to release publicly". Uh, if it was too much of a draft for the public why shouldn't it be too drafty for Google? Are we really…

[deleted]

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

#553

Post by juanbyrge » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:38 PM UTC

viktorcode wrote: post #295

fastball wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda the point though isn't it? We're only reading a summary of the paper because apparently the authors aren't confident enough in its quality to release it publicly. You can't claim that Google dismissed this paper out-of-hand while simultaneously saying "oh, but it's too much of a draft to release publicly". Uh, if it was too much of a draft for the public why shouldn't it be too drafty for Google? Are we really…

That, or Google is censoring the paper because of the conclusion it comes to, which doesn't align with their business interests.

If a company is paying a researcher a lofty salary (I am guessing ballpark mid six figures), and provides that researcher virtually unlimited tools and resources, shouldn't that company have a say in what material gets published by the researcher? Why shouldn't it have the ability to restrict research of dubious quality that makes borderline incorrect conclusions about the company?

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

#554

Post by 495636483 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

machinelabo wrote: post #547

dzdt wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News is about pseudonymous discussion. Only a small percent of HN posters are building a brand name. Twitter is much more real-name based and personal brand-building focussed. Jumping in on a bandwagon to signal group membership in an in group can help brand-building. Going against the in group is potentially fatal to your brand. The risk/reward balance does not favor genuine discussion of a controversial topi…

This is one of the most illuminating assessments of Twitter. It’s virtue signaling , as cliche as it sounds to use that term - that’s what Twitter has become. No fault of Twitter, we’ve created a culture in our society where persons with their open identity cannot easily voice dissenting opinions and going against the grain without getting cancelled. What a fucked up world we live in.

I am not on twitter. What's with this canceling? Who got cancelled? What does that mean for them? Could you illustrate some examples?

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

#555

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:44 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…

> Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation.

Abstract away from the particular goal here, the problem itself is difficult and interesting. How can the leader of a large organization change the organization’s culture?

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

#556

Post by aaomidi » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #81

mlyle wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're agreeing with someone being sarcastic. But it is text, so one can't be sure.

The problem with sarcasm on this issue (beyond the inherent ambiguity of plain text sarcasm) is that this is something you can see people saying literally (or, at least, as what they see as only a slightly hyperbolic description of a real trend that they are complaining about.)

I understand, sometimes sarcasm is my tool of expressing frustration.

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

#557

Post by newsclues » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

christophilus wrote: post #403

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…

I find that the average HN thread demonstrates a broader diversity of thought, and generally deeper, more critical, more scientific thought than the average Twitter feed. So it’s not surprising that Twitter would be near unanimous and HN would be more nuanced. This is one of the reasons I prefer HN to just about any other online forum.

HN is the new /.

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

#558

Post by guantanamo_bob » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:07 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…

It’s classic tokenism: invite a minority to the table but don’t let them speak.

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

#559

Post by bisectable » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:09 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #455

karmasimida wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 et…

You've worked with a visual appearances dataset, lacking sufficient examples from one class of entities, and it failed to perform well for that class. You solved the problem by adding more example of that class. While the malfunction might have hd some, as of yet unquantified, real world impact in some hypothetical police face recognition system, it doesn't follow that:

a. Datasets that are not about visual appearances, are prone to the same problem and to the same degree. Perhaps the house lending datasets / systems have small race (visual appearances) issues, but large class issues. The political debate of how to handle class issues is as old as politics have been around.

b. The extent of real world impact, which depends on the actual system deployed. Perhaps a hypothetical real world system has a 1% failure rate vs .1% failure rate. Should we stop developing useful system just because they are not produce exactly the same results across all visible demographics we can carve ourselves into?

c. Can the impact be mitigated by human post processing. The hypothetical face recognition system is part of the judicial process, there are many checks and balances before one gets to suffer drastic consequences. For example a human actually looking at the picture, or a solid alibi. "Your honor, I was skiing in Canada at the time of the alleged Florida murder".

As others have expressed in this thread, dealing with first order visual issues is easy. everyone can agree at a glance what a correct solution to visual questions is, and bugs are usually straightforward to fix. Language issues on the other hand, are second order, everything is subject to interpretation. Once we open the can of worms of talking 'critically' about language and AI, we are getting uncomfortably close to language police, and via Shapir Whorf, to thought police. The BIG underlying stake of 'AI Ethics', one that possibly neither side has completely articulated just yet:

Should a small group (in the thousands) of hyperachieving hyperpriviledged individuals working in the AI labs at the handful of megacorporations controlling the online flow of human language, get to decide what we can speak, and by extension what we can think?

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

#560

Post by guantanamo_bob » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

christophilus wrote: post #403

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…

I find that the average HN thread demonstrates a broader diversity of thought, and generally deeper, more critical, more scientific thought than the average Twitter feed. So it’s not surprising that Twitter would be near unanimous and HN would be more nuanced. This is one of the reasons I prefer HN to just about any other online forum.

Deeper and more critical sure (likely due to the platform, not necessarily the users).

On Twitter I can choose to follow POC, women, experts inside/outside this field and hear their opinion—-which I’d argue provides a more diverse representation than anonymous posts by a largely white male message board.

I also trust the opinion of someone willing to share their identity, it forces you to think more carefully about the stand you’re taking when your reputation is on the line.