Live data from Hacker News

We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

technologyreview.com

581–590 of 683 posts

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

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her manager said "effective today". That means no gardening leave.

If she was cut off without “gardening leave”, then she was fired. It can then be true that she both quit (two weeks notice) and she was fired (no two weeks for you). I’d be surprised if the latter was true as it would be petty on Google’s part. More likely would be gardening without access which would still be gardening.

"Effective today" has legal meaning. The NLRB just credibly accused Google of acting pettily in other cases too.[1]

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/02/google-spied-on-employees-il...

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

#582

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…

> Why is this? Because there are lots of FAANG engineers in here (i.e. working at Google, or with friends working at Google, or working at companies who do the same nasty AI stuff as Google) so them unconditionally supporting Gebru on this would be against their direct financial interests. It's as simple as that.

FAANG employees tend to consistently be among the most vocal and outspoken critics of FAANG. Also see the 1,200+ employees who signed a petition unconditionally supporting Gebru while turning a blind eye to her problematic behavior.

There's significant overlap between FAANG employees (and SV tech employees in general) and Woke Twitter.

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

#583
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’ve seen similar emails and never anyone fired from them. People have tried to claim equivalence with Damore and they are so night and day different that I struggle to believe the comparison is in good faith. The main difference is that the most egregious emails are often from technical leaders attacking those much lower in the pecking order. Regarding the beauty of modern discrimination that you note. Plaintiffs in…

[deleted]

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

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

What makes someone's opinion particularly valuable when that someone's a woman or not white? They might have different life experiences and perspectives on day to day life compared to a white male, but sex or race has zero relevance to knowledge-based fields.

The opinion of someone anonymous is probably very close to their true opinion. The opinion of non-anonymous users on Twitter is almost certainly censored.

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

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this? Because there are lots of FAANG engineers in here (i.e. working at Google, or with friends working at Google, or working at companies who do the same nasty AI stuff as Google) so them unconditionally supporting Gebru on this would be against their direct financial interests. It's as simple as that.

HN strikes me as being pretty consistently anti-Google almost every time Google comes up, so I don’t think this is the reason.

It's split quite evenly in pro and against camps, at least on privacy.

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

#586
I feel very disheartened that whatever good Timnit Gebru is doing in her work seems to be undermined by her constant antagonism and hostility. Based on this article, and additional context from other Google employees, I think she is in the right, but that she herself is such an obnoxious person it's hard for a lot of us here to be able to separate the issue with her personality.

My first introduction to Gebru (and probably a lot of others here) was through her fight with Yann LeCun. Whatever everyone thinks about that debate, one thing was clear: LeCun consistently asked his supporters to not attack Gebru, and tried to engage the discourse, whereas she repeatedly encouraged her supporters to attack LeCun, and avoided his points.

FWIW, I myself am a minority. I am very sympathetic to the investigation of AI ethics and Gebru's general area of work. I also completely understand and support the need for activists to disrupt norms: we wouldn't have civil liberties if activists weren't willing to disrupt middle-class norms.

But I think for exactly that reason activists have a responsibility (a greater responsibility even) to be selective about which norms or civilities they choose to disrupt. They do such enormous harm when their actions can be picked apart and dismissed for completely unrelated issues - in this case because Timnit doesn't seem to engage in good faith discussions with other experts in her field. It sucks, I really hate that this is what ethics in tech is going to be associated with.

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

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Nadella famously did it at Microsoft, but I don’t know exactly how. It would be fascinating to read a book on just that topic.

ICYDK, Nadella wrote a book on this and more: "Hit Refresh: The Quest to Rediscover Microsoft's Soul and Imagine a Better Future for Everyone". Really good read.

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

#588
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I’ve seen similar emails and never anyone fired from them. People have tried to claim equivalence with Damore and they are so night and day different that I struggle to believe the comparison is in good faith. The main difference is that the most egregious emails are often from technical leaders attacking those much lower in the pecking order. Regarding the beauty of modern discrimination that you note. Plaintiffs in…

You've seen an employee send out an email to colleagues instructing people of color to stop their efforts to improve the company, claiming the internal review process was an act of racist discrimination and dehumanization, and essentially calling their work a lost cause?

You've seen this followed up by threats to resign from the company if the anonymous reviewers' identities aren't revealed? And all this following prior threats of litigation against the company within the past year?

And you saw this from men or non-persons of color who were not fired? Obviously not, but if you do have examples that are sufficiently comparable in your mind, feel free to describe them and make a case. As it is, you're again falling back on unfalsifiable claims.

And I'm still curious to know why you'd expect a company not to fire someone in this scenario?

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

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Nadella famously did it at Microsoft, but I don’t know exactly how. It would be fascinating to read a book on just that topic.

Question for Microsoft employees: does it feel as if Satya changed the internal work culture at MS or has it been more about public perception and less about on the ground culture change?
Post reply on HN