Direct link to the original blog post the new article is referencing: https://googlewalkout.medium.com/setting-the-record-straight...
[deleted]
Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
31–40 of 179 posts
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#32Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work difficulties are sexism or racism. But I'm now finding that the procedure claimed actually essentially doesn't exist or if it did it was never enforced until now. What is going on? If this was an issue of the researcher unprofessionally airing her frustration…
The reality is that none of us have any idea what's going on. There's a bunch of employee-said/employer-said going on, with leaks to the press and rants on Twitter, but nobody has the whole picture. Plenty of people are willing to make guesses based on the fragments they have combined with their own biases, though.
Searching in HN under "Gebru" (the employee's last name) pulls up a bunch of past threads.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#33Didn’t she gave an ultimatum? Do this or I resign? And they are like we can’t do this so we consider you terminated?
If someone says "if you don't fix this thing I will look for work elsewhere" that doesn't mean that you can say "I accept your resignation." If you want that person gone immediately, you have to fire them.
> If someone says "if you don't fix this thing I will look for work elsewhere" that doesn't mean that you can say "I accept your resignation."
I think you'll find from a legal standpoint, it does.[1] At least I know that they teach in negotiations courses that any time you make a counteroffer, the original offer is legally null and void. So if I give you an employment offer that is good for 30 days, and you counter the following day with a higher salary, then I legally can say "No, and we will not hire you" (i.e. the 30 days clause became invalid once you gave me a counteroffer).
This isn't exactly the same, but we are at least taught to treat it similarly.
Also, she didn't merely say "I will look for work elsewhere". She said something to the effect of "Let's meet to decide my end date." There's a significant difference.
[1] Although being an at-will job, the legality is rather moot.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#34It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?
Obviously the individual who was let go loves the fame but I see most news website are pretty much looking for some sensational story to run mainly because doing more thorough analysis doesn't pay for itself. That's the problem.
I don't think it's as innocent as "loves the fame" ... there is a greater theme in our society regarding the influence of public opinion; and how influencers are abusing that in politics/positions of power.
The media of course enables it, which I think is a sign of a growing, large scale, rational fragility across society (demand controls their publication, there is a large demand for this type of information)
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#35When I worked at Google, there was always this sinister edge to all corporate events and communications and their culture, in general.
It was like that Star Trek episode - everything is paradise unless you commit a transgression. Any transgression, even minor, would result in your termination. In the Star Trek episode, it meant death, at Google, luckily, it just meant an involuntary "resignation".
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The following are equivalent: - I will look for work elsewhere - I will work on a last date - My last date is - This job isn't working out - I don't want to work here anymore - I offer my resignation - I quit
Legally speaking, that is not true at all. Edit: if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired.
> if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired.
I can't speak for California, but in my state, if you are fired and not laid off[1], you don't get unemployment benefits. I've anecdotally heard this is also the case in California. However, I've also heard that many tech companies state they will not dispute unemployment claims when fired (my company certainly says that), so people in these "privileged" companies often do collect unemployment even when fired.
[1] I hope people know the difference.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#37I think "do you have dealbreakers would you be prepared to resign over?" would be a reasonable interview question for a researcher in ethics.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#38Why would other employees be knowledgeable in the employment relationship between someone and a company? Unless the employees are in the direct management chain, or HR or something, aren't they just parroting what Timnit is claiming?
Sure, but management is also making a claim without direct evidence.
There is a difference between not having evidence and not providing evidence.
My point wasn't even about the truthiness of the claims of either side, but rather that if party A claims X, and then parties B and C just repeat the claims without being able to add anything - that's not news. That's just a person having allies who believe their claims.
If Microsoft chimed in and said Timnit actually resigned, no one would write an article on that (besides for how bizarre of a statement that would be by another company), because no one expects Microsoft to be apprised of what happens between Google and its employees.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#39Saw this on her Twitter feed:
> you know these last 2 weeks were supposed to be my vacations and we’re currently on a road trip.
Probably best not to send an email threatening to resign, then go on vacation and expect things to be normal.
Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims
#40It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?
[deleted]