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

#591

Post by goldenManatee » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

nathanlied wrote: post #444

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…

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 performative sense could have to do with a lack of personal connection to it. It’s a frustration for something not wholly understood, specially when the “performative” express strong conviction. I’m trying to understand how one could imagine someone would risk imprisonment, bodily injury, or death just for performance.

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

#592

Post by pseudalopex » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #508

sokoloff wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it’s germane. “I quit. My last day will be sometime in late Dec.” “We’ll pay you and recognize your employment through that date, but you are relieved of all duties effective immediately” is quite different from “Nope; your job ends today.”

How is that really a big difference? She's gone either way, because they wouldn't let her publish the paper. This way I guess she's more eligible for unemployment, but beyond that?

Should she have been fired for her email to the group? It's hard to discuss if people don't agree she was fired.

Should we believe her or her managers? Her managers pretending they just accepted her resignation is dishonest.

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

#593

Post by kenjackson » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:50 PM UTC

ioctrl wrote: post #588

kenjackson wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

As you imply, something this specific I've never seen. I have seen emails go out to large mailing lists calling out the integrity of the company with respect to their dealing with a foreign country and saying that the leadership was condoning if not contributing to genocide. This was a white male making this statement and nothing was done (at least not publicly, and they weren't fired).

I posted something earlier about another company and internal emails to a broad mailing list relating to sexual harassment from people in the company. Again, nothing was done there against the people who wrote the email (at least not publicly). And in this case, similar to Timnit, it made national news. Although in that case it was a white female.

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

#594

Post by saagarjha » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:02 PM UTC

bzb6 wrote: post #237

saagarjha wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am honestly disappointed to see this kind of response at the top of comments here. Every time we have some sort of social issue come up people here come in to pick apart the person involved, and I think it’s one of the bigger reasons why some maintain a generally negative view of Hacker News. Can you imagine being Timnit and stopping by this thread, where the top comment, in colorful language, reduces you to a soci…

> I think it’s one of the bigger reasons why some maintain a generally negative view of Hacker News. Twitter already exists, we don’t need another place online to spend all day spreading false positivity.

I’m not asking you to spread false positivity, I’m asking you to not read quotes of a rereading of a paper by an author who is not the person we’re discussing and then using it to complain that a researcher is useless and that her entire field is useless.

A comment that started off with “it seems like Timnit Gebru mat have overestimated the impact…” is not false positivity.

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

#595

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:07 PM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #592

CydeWeys wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that really a big difference? She's gone either way, because they wouldn't let her publish the paper. This way I guess she's more eligible for unemployment, but beyond that?

Should she have been fired for her email to the group? It's hard to discuss if people don't agree she was fired. Should we believe her or her managers? Her managers pretending they just accepted her resignation is dishonest.

What makes it dishonest? Do you not believe that she stipulated that she'd resign under certain conditions? Do you not believe those conditions then came to exist? Do you not believe that her managers accepted her resignation?

I don't have a strong opinion in the matter (and have no connection to Google), but if she in fact unambiguously offered her resignation conditioned on her paper not being approved to publish and Google accepted her offer, I don't see how she can turn around and claim she was fired.

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

#596

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

saeranv wrote: post #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 pr…

> whereas she repeatedly encouraged her supporters to attack LeCun, and avoided his points.

This is historical revisionism, colored by your misremembering of the events. If you go back and look, you'll be unable to find Gebru encouraging anyone to attack LeCun.

Nor will you find LeCun making an effort to engage with Gebrus research. He never so much as acknowledges the existence of her publications when asked to read or comment on them.

E: as an amusing example of the importance of this kind of research, my phone decided that when I typed "Gebru", I meant "Henry".

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

#597

Post by web007 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

nashalo wrote: post #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…

I haven't noticed this elsewhere, but haven't been paying attention. It'll be interesting to see how much I notice it henceforth - interesting and probably disappointing.

Regarding first/last name confusion, how many people here on HN _know_ which is her first name and which is her last? It's a lot easier for Western Anglicized speakers to get it wrong with non-Western non-Anglicized names than with "Jeff Dean", whether intentionally or not.

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

#598

Post by JamesBarney » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #545

JamesBarney wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. She is obviously doing good research, but I could also see why she wouldn't be a good fit for Google (or really any other large tech company). I really don't see why this isn't a win for everyone. She said she didn't want to work there under current conditions,…

> She's not a victim. She was an employee who sent in her resignation/ultimatum letter and then blasted an unprofessional message to a bunch of her colleagues. The most interesting part of the story is the part that happened before this.

Where google requested she retract her paper to include information that was flattering to google and Google thought was relevant?

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

#599

Post by saeranv » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:44 PM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #596

saeranv wrote: post #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 pr…

> whereas she repeatedly encouraged her supporters to attack LeCun, and avoided his points. This is historical revisionism, colored by your misremembering of the events. If you go back and look, you'll be unable to find Gebru encouraging anyone to attack LeCun. Nor will you find LeCun making an effort to engage with Gebrus research. He never so much as acknowledges the existence of her publications when asked to read…

So as I recall, you're right that she didn't encourage people explicitly, but she kept retweeting other supporters attacking LeCun, whereas LeCun kept telling his supporters to not attack her, and talked very positively of her. I agree my phrasing is muddying the waters, I should have been more precise.

On another note, it's interesting to me that I keep seeing the LeCun debate come up here again and again as an example of her being a bad-faith debater, given that it technically doesn't have anything to do with this Google debate.

Whether we agree with her on the substance, I feel like it strengthens my point that she badly damaged her perception amongst the ML/AI crowd, and their willingness to give her the benefit of the doubt in the way she chose to debate LeCun.

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

#600

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #508

sokoloff wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it’s germane. “I quit. My last day will be sometime in late Dec.” “We’ll pay you and recognize your employment through that date, but you are relieved of all duties effective immediately” is quite different from “Nope; your job ends today.”

How is that really a big difference? She's gone either way, because they wouldn't let her publish the paper. This way I guess she's more eligible for unemployment, but beyond that?

> How is that really a big difference?

Well, I mean, for one thing it about $20K difference in salary alone.

> She's gone either way

True.

> because they wouldn't let her publish the paper.

That's...less clearly true in any meaningful sense. The public statements from all the other Google AI people about how the official narrative is inconsistent with general practice on publication review suggests very strongly that the management actions related to the paper were a pretextual component of a constructive termination campaign, and that even when it succeeded in generating something management could at least seize on as a “resignation” the result was insufficiently immediate requiring finding another pretext for immediate termination.