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

61–70 of 179 posts

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

#61

Post by jrockway »

actuator wrote: post #24
KittenInABox wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've stated before that I don't want to work at a job without intending to actually leave the job or having a last date. In those cases I was venting and was burnt out. I've even admitted this to managers I could trust to talk about how to unburn me instead of declaring I've 'resigned', because I bring a lot of value to teams I'm on.

I am quite sure you didn't send email to fellow employees asking them to immediately stop work on the projects they were working on. I am assuming that was the red line, I am not a manager but it would have been for me.

So, that's getting fired for cause, maybe, but not resigning. Google's official story is that she resigned. You have to stretch things pretty far to say that taking an action that might get you fired is the same as resigning. Resigning is handing in your badge and laptop and leaving the building. Getting fired is being called into a 4PM Friday meeting with HR and they escort you from the building afterwards.

I am not really even sure how meaningful an email telling your coworkers to stop working on their projects is. It really depends on the tone. When I was at Google, I used the internal social media extensively. I am sure at some point someone said something like "I'm really depressed about how my project is going" and I would reply with something like "You should join my team! I have a req!" That's technically telling someone to stop working on their project, but is a completely acceptable thing to do.

Ultimately the exact details matter, and we don't have them.

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

#62

Post by morelisp »

kd913 wrote: post #57
morelisp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 in…

If we were talking about Linus Torvalds, Jim Keller or Raja Koduri someone who is actually an industry driver then sure. These are individuals who have had considerable impact on a piece of technology whose names I can recognize for the tech they built. I have no idea what or how this individual matters at all or the tech that she is relevant in. Not everyone at FAANG are industry leaders, and there are several cogs…

My entire reply is about Google (not even specifically Google!), but you're still focusing on Gebru.

> I have no idea

Why are you commenting then?

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

#63

Post by ciarannolan »

SullyGoober wrote: post #48
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…

I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).

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

#64

Post by prodtorok »

actuator wrote: post #44
prodtorok wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Completely agree. I'd say, historically speaking, that Facebook became a constrained negative environment while twitter was more of an open, entertaining, and free environment (and less tied to actual life/society). This isn't the case any longer.

Facebook is now far less egregious & more of a soft environment to socialize with people you personally know. Bubbles/pockets of societal function and some large-influence which is lesser enabled than the prior.

Twitter is a platform that justifies large societal movement through "influential information".

(I don't have the best english to articulate here)

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

#65

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

Looking at all this drama, the AI researcher sounds toxic:

* Picked a public Twitter fight with Yang LeCun

* Her peers are so afraid of critiquing her paper, that they demand anonymity through HR

* Tells co-workers to stop working on documents

One of the things that has been emphasized in tech for the past several years is not to allow justifying retaining toxic people on account of their talent. In addition, your life experiences don’t justify being toxic. For example, even if a person’s Dad was an abusive alcoholic, that would not justify them being abusive to co-workers.

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

#66

Post by SullyGoober »

ciarannolan wrote: post #63
SullyGoober wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).

This is a very charged subject, akin to a political discussion. I am not surprised if it gets more downvotes. That is why I made an anonymous account. Pick the "wrong" side and now all your opinions are suspect.

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

#67

Post by kd913 »

morelisp wrote: post #62
kd913 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were talking about Linus Torvalds, Jim Keller or Raja Koduri someone who is actually an industry driver then sure. These are individuals who have had considerable impact on a piece of technology whose names I can recognize for the tech they built. I have no idea what or how this individual matters at all or the tech that she is relevant in. Not everyone at FAANG are industry leaders, and there are several cogs…

My entire reply is about Google (not even specifically Google!), but you're still focusing on Gebru. > I have no idea Why are you commenting then?

Because my original point still stands?

In articles discussing Raja, Jim, Linus and their various moves. The first paragraph introduces into great detail about their impacts relating to their contributions to x86, GPUs or the kernel.

This individual's highlight appears to be her employment at Google. She is an AI ethics researcher? So what makes her important or an 'industry leader'?

Why should I care and why is Google's dirty laundry here in the open?

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

#68

Post by apta »

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?

Hopefully it's a lesson for other companies to be very careful for hiring "woke" SJW's after seeing the chaos they're causing.

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

#69

Post by lsiebert »

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?

Do you not care about Google censoring and firing one of the people who are supposed to keep it ethical?

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

#70

Post by svrb »

alacombe wrote: post #10
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.

When you put an ultimatum forward, you must expect being called on it and lose. She got called on it and lost. The least she could do is walk away with some honor and walk her talk. Not only she doesn't even seem to be able to do that, but she keeps playing victim...

And why shouldn't she, given all the internet is lapping it up?
Post reply on HN