Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 266 posts

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#41

Post by iab »

dmarchand90 wrote: post #18
miked85 wrote: post #13

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired. At that point she was on her way out, one way or another; most employers would rather not work with people like this.

I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately. Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.

I think that would have been the civilized thing to do. But that is the exception, not the rule in the bay; I.e once you have made your intentions known, and are perceived as someone who could cause damage in the interim, you are out straight away. Feels like a natural consequence of at-will employment.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#42

Post by gfodor »

zartar wrote: post #26

I find the semi-regular condemnations from employees of big tech companies hollow. If you work for one of these companies and find their behavior unsavory, go work somewhere else - this is actually what might cause executives at these companies to reflect on how they might change course. The fact that most of these employees could easily get well paying (just not as _ridiculously well paying_) jobs elsewhere to me fe…

The Facebook “walkout” was a particularly hilarious example of this when you consider the second step of the walkout: walking back in.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#43

Post by geofft »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #24
geofft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to know which coworkers are raising feedback in a process that does not provide for anonymous feedback in the first place is not "doxxing" them. (EDIT: Note that this particular process was not a peer review process - academic peer review is done by people from another institution , and selected by the venue after submitting a paper. This was a pre-submission internal review process which has never been bille…

> process that does not provide for anonymous feedback What makes you say this? Ultimately, the process is determined by Google. She had managers say she couldn't get that information. Why wouldn't that be the end of the conversation with regards to their identities?

The process is determined by Google, yes, but there is a written, established process, which management did not abide by.

Now it is technically true that management does not have to abide by it and can redefine the process at any time, but that doesn't mean saying "The established process is not an anonymous feedback process, what is going on" is doxxing anyone.

Last week at work I was told that a particular internal product was being wound down and was not considered strategic in 2021 planning, and I asked who expressed that desire because my team has a particular technical need for it and I think there are ways to run it more efficiently, and I wanted to have a conversation with them and find an answer that's good for the business. I would have been confused if I was told "I can't tell you that." Was I trying to dox someone?

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#44

Post by read_if_gay_ »

muglug wrote: post #14
paperdropper wrote: post #4

A draft copy of the disputed paper was posted over in Reddit, if this is of interest to anyone: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t... https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF

Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, that’s exactly the sort of paper one might expect to be written by someone whose job title includes the words “ethics” and “AI”. I’m not sure what Google expected.

What stood out to you?

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#45

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

freshhawk wrote: post #11
pmyteh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might get fired for... supporting your bosses' decision to fire someone?

Some people have a stance they chose, that this is some Daily Mail "political correctness gone mad" thing, because SJW cultural domination controls all our lives. They're working through some cognitive dissonance.

Gebru and her supporters say that she was fired in part because she's a black woman and the racist Google culture rejected her. If they don't want others to frame it as a "political correctness gone mad" thing, they should drop the race baiting.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#47

Post by chippy »

ystad wrote: post #36
dmarchand90 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately. Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.

What's the point of the two week notice in this case?

as I understand it, she was on vacation at the time

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#48

Post by w1ntermute »

zartar wrote: post #26

I find the semi-regular condemnations from employees of big tech companies hollow. If you work for one of these companies and find their behavior unsavory, go work somewhere else - this is actually what might cause executives at these companies to reflect on how they might change course. The fact that most of these employees could easily get well paying (just not as _ridiculously well paying_) jobs elsewhere to me fe…

It’s just another example of the “participation culture” that modern parenting and social media have made commonplace. Who needs to do anything real when you can just upvote or retweet? You get the same sort of participation trophy that you’ve been taught to aim for since childhood.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#49

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

geofft wrote: post #43
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> process that does not provide for anonymous feedback What makes you say this? Ultimately, the process is determined by Google. She had managers say she couldn't get that information. Why wouldn't that be the end of the conversation with regards to their identities?

The process is determined by Google, yes, but there is a written, established process, which management did not abide by. Now it is technically true that management does not have to abide by it and can redefine the process at any time, but that doesn't mean saying "The established process is not an anonymous feedback process, what is going on" is doxxing anyone. Last week at work I was told that a particular internal…

Given her history and ultimatum, the chances of her doxxing them publicly was high. Given her public response since her resignation, Google's caution in releasing that information appears justified to me.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#50

Post by rfrey »

claudeganon wrote: post #29
miked85 wrote: post #13

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired. At that point she was on her way out, one way or another; most employers would rather not work with people like this.

So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do something or you’ll quit, this is bad and makes you unemployable. You realize that this is just an argument that whoever is in a position of authority over you is right by virtue of having that authority?

Without commenting on the politics of this particular case, I think what you describe is built into the definition of "boss".
Post reply on HN