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

Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#41

Post by zorpner »

BeetleB wrote: post #33
shkkmo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think you'll find from a legal standpoint, it does.

In fact, it specifically does not: https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#42

Post by morelisp »

kd913 wrote: post #12

It 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?

> Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG

FAANG employs a tremendous number of technology workers, are key drivers the industry-wide technical agenda formally (standards bodies) and informally (open source project management, areas of active research), are often the first line of serious education for new workers, and the fallback for workers when riskier undertakings fail.

If anything far more of their internal management (project and people) processes should be scrutinized.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#43

Post by worker767424 »

oh_sigh wrote: post #11
alisonkisk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But they said "we accept your resignation" without waiting to see if she'd follow through on the ultimatum, and without respecting her stated plan to work on an end date.

AIUI, she is still on the payroll, but has just been restricted from accessing anything. There's no law (at least -in the US) that says that if an employee gives their 2 weeks notice, that you have to let them keep coming in for those 2 weeks. You can just give them 2 weeks of salary and tell them to immediately leave. From one of the leaked emails, it seems like she would have been given her 2 weeks if she hadn't wr…

That'd be smart; you can meet her timeline so it's officially a resignation, but with all the benefits of ending the relationship that day.

I've seen people walked out the day they give notice, but I assume they weren't technically fired, and paying out their two weeks is the right thing to do.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#44

Post by actuator »

prodtorok wrote: post #34
gerash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

FB gets criticized a lot in HN but Twitter isn't. IMO Twitter is absolutely the worst platform for things like these because of the prevalent mob culture. It is very easy to organise people using your influence and they can easily hound out any dissenting opinion.

I will have to search for them now but I saw people doxxing some of the current Googler's identities if they agreed with the resignation. This is extremely toxic.

Even the old media seems to love Twitter and it escapes FB level of scrutiny.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#45

Post by sorenjan »

hartator wrote: post #3

Didn’t she gave an ultimatum? Do this or I resign? And they are like we can’t do this so we consider you terminated?

My uninformed interpretation is that Google wanted her gone and jumped at the first opportunity they got. If they wanted her around I don't think the reasons they've given for letting her go would have been dealbreakers.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#46

Post by VikingCoder »

tantalor wrote: post #13
shkkmo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

"My last date is , BECAUSE I'M RETIRING."

If you immediately fire someone for that, that may be illegal age discrimination.

Cheers.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#47

Post by worker767424 »

sleepytimetea wrote: post #35

When 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".

I'm pretty sure you're also describing Singapore.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#48

Post by SullyGoober »

KittenInABox wrote: post #14

Can 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…

It depends on who you ask:

1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up.

2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to be a minority race and/or female in the tech industry.

3) Still others will say: This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism.

4) Another line of thought that is a variant of #1: This is about an employee who did not follow company rules and processes. She was fired as a result. The statements privately and publicly about "resignation" were an attempt to not publicly disparage her

Did I miss any others? With a nod to the Rashomon Principle, your interpretation of these events depends on your perspective.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#49

Post by tantalor »

VikingCoder wrote: post #46
tantalor wrote: post #13

Earlier 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

"My last date is , BECAUSE I'M RETIRING." If you immediately fire someone for that, that may be illegal age discrimination. Cheers.

I didn't say anything about "immediately firing" anybody, cheers.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#50

Post by GauntletWizard »

zorpner wrote: post #41
BeetleB wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I think you'll find from a legal standpoint, it does. In fact, it specifically does not: https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf

That’s about whether pay is owed. I’m certain that Google did not simply stop paying her checks, but told her to go home and that the remainder of her employment would be paid out. I suspect that’s enough for the law to agree that she was terminated voluntarily.
Post reply on HN