571–580 of 683 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protect Google.
While that may be a self-interested professional agenda (they pay him an obscene salary), that's hardly politics.
Google is one of the largest players in AI, not to mention one of the largest companies in the world, and the focus politics surrounding Tech in general.
Defending Google’s AI ethics is politics.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. It was literally her job to conduct such research. It's not politics, it's ethics (tethics)
Furthermore, even if my manager or employer makes it an explicit priority to promote more women or PoC, I don't question whether my own gender or skin color will ultimately work against me at promotion time. I grew up in a time and environment where I didn't need to question that, so I tend not think about it. Even if I did think about it, it's a culturally inappropriate question to ask, so my only option is to keep my head down and work harder.
As a white man, when my work is rejected, I assume it's because my work needs improvement. This is an advantage of being a white man. When things don't go my way, I don't need to wonder if it's a macro-aggression, an act of systemic discrimination, or suppression of a marginalized voice. I don't envy my colleagues who navigate these waters. Furthermore, even if my manager or employer makes it an explicit priority to…
Such is the product of a country which hasn't had any real problems in half a century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the beauty of modern discrimination. You never come out and say you’re discriminating. Rather you just apply the rules selectively. An inconsistent process is the best best way to discriminate. My prediction is you will see some people leave Google due to this. Likely those who worked closest to her. Apple is already extending interest.
That's another beauty of modern discrimination: it's unfalsifiable. From everything made public, her behavior constitutes a fireable offense at any company I've ever worked at, regardless of skin color. And there is precedent for non-PoCs being fired for posting unprofessional messages to internal message boards. So why would you consider her actions permissible?
Regarding the beauty of modern discrimination that you note. Plaintiffs in these cases almost always lose, because it is almost unprovable and the bar is high (being called the n-word for example isn’t sufficient). Being unfalsifiable provides little solace if there is no consequence to the discrimination.
The threads so far on this ongoing story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25307167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25285502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25289445
Hi dang, I’ve recently noticed that this commonly occurs ie multiple relevant threads that make up the top 50 of HN over say a 72 hour period, all related or rifts on a similar discussion. Wondering if there is a way to group them as part of the same topic/submission? (thus saving you the manual work of posts like this). I appreciate this would (i) require a code change and (ii) would shift the HN model from individu…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s the beauty of modern discrimination. You never come out and say you’re discriminating. Rather you just apply the rules selectively. An inconsistent process is the best best way to discriminate. My prediction is you will see some people leave Google due to this. Likely those who worked closest to her. Apple is already extending interest.
Maybe I'm not understanding the argument. But why do people think she was let go? My understanding is she wrote a paper critical of certain aspects of Google's business. They asked her to retract it for revisions because they didn't think it was fair to Google which believed it had made advancements relevant to her critiques. She thought this review was unfair so she wrote an unprofessional message to an internal gro…
Possibly. I do think it is likely that she isn't fired if she was a white male. In my experience, people have more patience with people who are in their "in-group". This goes beyond race/gender -- just look at sports fandom for an example. Isn't it odd that players for the team you cheer for can do no wrong, but as soon as they're traded then they start doing a bunch of bad stuff, even the stuff they did while on your team actually now looks kind of bad. In the tech industry role/team/company/race/gender are probably the biggest in-group delineations.
> Do you believe that corporations generally accept ultimatums?
Yes they do. The most common ultimatum is given before employment, where candidates will often give a minimum salary/benefits they will take for the job. I've seen and even been involved in these negotiations where a candidate states that they will not go below this offer, period. And then we counter with a number below that but provide some other incentive we think may counter it.
There are other ultimatums I've seen in the workplace. For example, "I can't work with XYZ or I'm leaving the team". I don't think I've ever seen the response come back as, "good luck finding a new team". It's always been to dive deeper into the relationship.
In fact I issued an ultimatum many years ago where I said I couldn't travel any more due to a personal issue or I'd have to find new employment. I guess you could say they yielded to my threat. I like to think that I was just being honest and they helped find a way that I could still help the team, especially since I only traveled a couple of times per year.
> Do you believe the message she sent out would never be a fireable offense?
I can imagine it being listed as a firing offense in some handbook. I can also imagine that others who have written damning emails have gotten away with no more than a slap on the wrist (or less).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's still up to you to resign at that point, or to back down. They can't accept the threat itself as a resignation. That's not how threats work.
I really dont understand this logic. Firstly, there is ample evidence of her toxic behaviour online. (See the exchange with lecun on twitter, absolutely horrible). So its clear she has issues with how to collaborate and communicate. She then goes on to threaten the company she works for. Like wtf? Irrespective of what you want to do in response, act like a professional. If you were a CEO/Manager etc and had someone w…
Which is fine, but that's firing them for acting up. It doesn't really matter what the demands are.