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

221–230 of 266 posts

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

#221

Post by dontblink »

eat_veggies wrote: post #164
dx87 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, you support the decision, but your immediate boss doesn't, so they start looking for reasons to get rid of you that don't have any official connection to your stance. I remember a while back seeing leaked documents from Google where some managers shared an unofficial blacklist of employees to never promote and try to get rid of because of their political views.

Why are we conjuring hypothetical situations in which you are oppressed, instead of condemning the concrete case where Jeff Dean looked for flimsy reasons to get rid of Timnit Gebru?

CA is an at will state. He can fire her for no reason if he wishes, let alone a "flimsy" one.

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

#222

Post by paperdropper »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #104
paperdropper wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other curious thing is, behind the pink-boxed redactions are the names of four other Google employees. I'm wondering why they haven't been reprimanded in the same way. At least, not that we know of.

Well, she wasn't reprimanded for writing the paper nor for publishing it. In fact, she wasn't even reprimanded as far as I know for telling other employees to stop working on DEI. She told them she wanted confidental information or she will quit on a date she would like. They said they would not give her that information and that she is no longer welcome at the company. This isn't really reprimanding or even a normal…

> She told them she wanted confidental information

I understand this is only because upper management had chosen to anonymize their review of the paper, which is apparently quite unusual in Google.

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

#223

Post by gfodor »

true_religion wrote: post #124
gfodor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you look at trade unions, you see that walkouts, work slow downs and temporary strikes are commonly used. The goal is never to destroy the company but to simply force them to the bargaining table by reminding them of the economic power workers provide. A total strike or worse a union quitting a company all together is a nuclear option.

This wasn’t a labor dispute about being treated fairly but a position employees were taking on principles. The truly principled walked out and didn’t come back.

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

#224

Post by zartar »

pydry wrote: post #202
zartar wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was about the 1200 workers who condemned the firing. There have been similar recent public statements such as MS workers about use of AI for the pentagon, FB employees on content, etc.. Simply I mean the best way to support a wrongfully ousted ethicist would be to leave yourself, rather than keep getting paid by the execs who wronged her. The work of AI ethics - especially in the vein of Timnit Gebru - is…

>Simply I mean the best way to support a wrongfully ousted ethicist would be to leave yourself What are you basing this on? I can think of at least one example where this pressure actually worked (caused google management to reverse course). ICE contracts, I think? Your strategy would seem to be more in Google management's favor - clearing out all the people who might kick up a fuss when they try to engage in unethic…

A typical recruiting fee is 30 percent of an employees annual salary.

A typical onboarding process takes weeks or months of paid employee time.

Employees value to a company increases substantially over time due to knowledge of culture, process, etc.

Executives care a lot when company actions cause employees to leave. Human capital is one of the essential ingredients to a successful company.

These things are real money and execs care about the impact on bottom line.

This is typically the most important aspect of an exit interview. In my experience, the employee's reason for leaving is thoroughly examined.

Does "condemning an action" have the same impact?

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

#225

Post by tmerr »

Technically wrote: post #76
tinalumfoil wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they are looking to assuage their conscious through statements like these Statements like these still put pressure on Google. It's possible to care enough to say something, without caring enough to go beyond talk, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's all performative.

How does it put pressure on Google? Where's the leverage?

Because it threatens Google's PR.

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

#226

Post by snakeboy »

Frondo wrote: post #182
snakeboy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I'm not at the point where I'm signing an open letter to condemn my employer for something. However if you are at that point, you may at least consider that you should be working elsewhere.

Why? If the workers can apply pressure and get their employer to change whatever objectionable behavior it's doing, why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't workplaces be more democratic? We got rid of kings everywhere else, why should we keep them around just because they're signing our paychecks?

I'm in total agreement with you. My response was a criticism of those who sit idly by and collect their massive paycheck, and perhaps signing an open letter from time to time to sleep better at night. It's just paying lip service to the cause.

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

#227

Post by _y5hn »

tertius wrote: post #218
_y5hn wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My strongest argument is AGAINST managers at Google getting to micromanage, censor and to revenge-fire a researcher, just because they personally disagree with their published AI Ethics Research . A job said researcher was tasked with and leading. Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.

That's not what I asked. If you can't argue the counter of your own position in the most honest way possible then either you're not prepared or not honest. It's called steel manning.

The best rebuttal so far has been to decline to comment.

However, without revealing names the paper outlines internal company matters, presenting opinions and tautology that do not fit proper format of professionally published research. Instead of reworking a flawed paper, the researcher escalated and exposed individual opinion, publicly. Such company representation is out of scope for research positions. As Google could not agree to terms of email, it was taken as resignation notice.

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

#228

Post by dragonwriter »

claudeganon wrote: post #51
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…

Or they could just actually unionize instead of this reactive outrage. It’s unlikely Gebru would have been fired under these circumstances if she had a union contract.

> Or they could just actually unionize instead of this reactive outrage.

Some of the employees involved are in management (as was Gebru), so they don't have that right, nor would that protect people in positions similar to Gebru's.

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

#229

Post by dragonwriter »

true_religion wrote: post #137
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a manager, Gebru wouldn't have been allowed into a union.

Is she really a manager? In factories the foreman was considered part of the Union rank and file. PMs and other developer leadership could be integrated into a union. Basically if you can be promoted up into a position it can be a union job. If you need a business degree to do it though then it’s non union.

> Is she really a manager?

Yes.

> In factories the foreman was considered part of the Union rank and file.

She's not a foreman.

> Basically if you can be promoted up into a position it can be a union job.

That's not how the NLRA works; in plenty of workplaces people can, even if they rarely do, promote without limit and most management positions don't require business degrees, but that doesn't make all those positions NLRA-protected.

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

#230

Post by thu2111 »

telltruth wrote: post #103
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.

Initially I took Google's side given Gebru has history of bullying so aggressively and has no qualms to play race/gender cards at every opportunity she gets. But now that more details (including the paper in question) has been revealed, it's hard to stay on Google's side. It is clear that the peer review process that Jeff Dean had described has been optional for all intent and purpose. It says along similar lines tha…

It's really sad watching people bend over backwards trying to give this person a break.

You admit she's a bully, super aggressive, constantly makes spurious accusations of racism, attempts to destroy her enemies totally and is in general a nightmare employee in every way. Then you say you take her side because Dean could have given her "transparency"? Are you aware she was demanding the identities of people who had criticised her work, presumably so she could then go and bully them too?

This person is a 100% A+ straightforward case of someone who should be fired and in fact should have been fired long ago. All those attributes are the sort of thing that absolutely qualify someone for dismissal. If you were feeling trollish, you might even say it's black and white.

Post reply on HN