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

131–140 of 179 posts

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

#131

Post by lawnchair_larry »

morelisp wrote: post #42
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 in…

They do this kind of scrutiny in China and Russia, and make changes as they see fit. No thanks.

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

#132

Post by throwaway19937 »

tb303 wrote: post #91
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.

Just a nudge from a stranger: Please take a moment to consider the extremely difficult position "the individual" may be in, the frustrations leading up to this, and the possible negative impact this has on their career that they had to weigh before naively thinking that they "love the fame." that's gamergate mentality in action and will work against you.

Timnit's position is a direct result of her actions and internal reputation at Google.

No one forced her to do any of the following things:

1. Griping about the racist reviewers of her paper on Twitter.

2. Sending an email to a internal list criticizing Google's behavior and telling people to stop working on diversity.

3. Demanding the names of reviewers and threatening to resign if they weren't provided.

#2 or #3 would get you fired or cause your resignation to be accepted any place that I've worked.

#1 wouldn't get you fired but it's not going to help your career.

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

#133

Post by falcolas »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #104

This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one. It's getting so much debate! I think everybody understands that she gave an ultimatum that included a "or else I will resign." I think everybody understands that Google responded with a "you are out as of now" that took her by surprise. And yet there are a bazillion articles debating what verb best describes that pair of events. I get that there is…

'Resigned' indicates an action on her part, and typically considered to be an amicable parting. 'Fired' means an action on Google's part, typically because of a perceived misdeed.

By calling it a resignation, Google is making it sound as if it was an amicable choice she made, not their judgement call about her actions.

Words matter. Word choices always matter. Especailly single words which come with a lot of built-in context.

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

#134

Post by lsiebert »

kd913 wrote: post #109
lsiebert wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://gizmodo.com/more-than-1-500-google-employees-sign-pe... I mean google employees including most of her coworkers seem to think it's problematic.

Yes because the individual internally can see a better picture as to why the disagreement has occurred and why it's important. More importantly, the individuals within the company can influence the decision much better. None of that is useful here which from an external perspective looks like a employment dispute. She isn't exactly doing a Snowden here. Even if the individuals internally view it as problematic, I am…

We talk about the tech community right? What do you do when there's a problem in your community you want to address... not talk about it?

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

#135

Post by microtherion »

Scea91 wrote: post #127
microtherion wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easier not to complain about behavior if you’re the perpetrator, rather than the recipient, of the behavior. I bet Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t have a history of complaining about cannibalism either, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the good guy.

Based on what exactly do you imply that Jeff Dean is a perpetrator of racism? Because he is a white dude? Isn't that ironic?

From what I have read about the affair, e.g. the latest "setting the record straight" blog post linked from the article, I have strong reasons to believe that the paper in question:

1. Did in fact go through and pass the internal approval process that he implied it didn't.

2. Was then subjected to a second, intransparent "review" that is not customary practice at Google.

3. The results of that "review" were presented to the author as a decree (which also is not customary practice).

4. And when the author subsequently protested that she would not work under such rules (as well she should) that was taken as a pretext to let her go — without even involving her direct manager.

Under those circumstances, Dean's response is misleading and evasive, a practice often characterized as "gaslighting" or, in the term that the grandparent comment ridiculed, a "micro-aggression".

It's not about whether you're a "white dude", it's what rules you set for "white dudes" vs. "non-white non-dudes".

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

#136

Post by yongjik »

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".

Well, I mean, it depends on what you mean by "transgression", but when I worked at Google the following are lists of things that were not considered transgression:

* Saying a high profile project is botched, mismanaged, and doomed to fail. (Anyone remember google+?)

* Mocking and criticizing the SVP who led the project.

* Rejoicing in the departure of the said SVP.

* Talking about one of the founders having an affair. (Well, to be fair, the news broke outside first.)

* Memes disagreeing with company decisions, including one that literally said "What the fuck are you doing" for firing someone.

* And, last but not least, complaining that the quality of microkitchen has gone downhill since $(the year you joined).

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

#137

Post by sjg007 »

zorpner wrote: post #29
oh_sigh wrote: post #5

Why 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?

In fact, Timnit Gebru's actual manager has issued a specific statement on this. It's on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=34697380164672... Full text: Just wanted to say that I was stunned by what just happened to Timnit Gebru, who was in my team until a few days ago (I'm sure you've all read what happened already). I have always been and will remain a strong supporter of her scientific work to…

I mean that's a pretty big endorsement and something people here should think about.

Also I read the highlights of the paper linked here and it seems fine and reasonable. These are reasonable questions to ask. Sure we can mitigate the cost of training these models with green energy or finding new optimization./compression techniques etc... but that doesn't mean that with ever evolving data volumes we will ever fully mitigate that. Bitcoin for all its merit consumes a lot of energy. Is that more than USD or something else?

Another thing to consider is that AI right now has a rich get richer winner take all dynamic. We have titans battling it out for NLP supremacy. Deep mind just revolutionized protein folding which has direct implications into biomedical research and technology. Small academic labs are at an extreme disadvantage unless they collaborate with big tech. Interestingly physics research evolved in a similar way with large particle colliders and telescopes started up. So you can make a direct analogy to that, that the basic research can only be done with million dollar investments. That's an ethical question. GPT-3 trained on misinformation would make pizza gate look tame in comparison. So there are huge social implications.

Even real datasets collected from society and social data will have implicit and explicit biases in them. There are huge ethical concerns with data, data collection and with the interpretations AI models will make.

Your credit score, your social credit score, a company that refuses to hire you because a chat bot has labeled you subversive.

The TSA/DHS blanket banned people from flying and gave no feedback or transparency into why. It took members of Congress to get some people redressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Math_Destruction

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

#138

Post by lawnchair_larry »

shkkmo wrote: post #6
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?

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 you ever say something like this and you are fired, you should not be surprised. There’s basically never a reason to do this. If it’s something that your manager can fix, and you’re valued, you wouldn’t use an ultimatum. You’d have enough influence and mutual respect to have a conversation about it. If it’s something they can’t fix, your ultimatum is useless anyway.

Otherwise, this is an all-in bet, and you need to be fully committed to leaving before doing it.

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

#139

Post by kd913 »

lsiebert wrote: post #134
kd913 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because the individual internally can see a better picture as to why the disagreement has occurred and why it's important. More importantly, the individuals within the company can influence the decision much better. None of that is useful here which from an external perspective looks like a employment dispute. She isn't exactly doing a Snowden here. Even if the individuals internally view it as problematic, I am…

We talk about the tech community right? What do you do when there's a problem in your community you want to address... not talk about it?

This is not an issue that affects the wider tech community. It is specifically relevant to Google and nobody else.

The firing/resigning/petitions are irrelevant.

The wider community important information would be the specific ethical issue she is keen on raising.

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

#140

Post by worker767424 »

morelisp wrote: post #73
okareaman wrote: post #59

There's was an incident a while back where 2 engineers were joking between themselves about a "big dongle" and the woman seated in the row ahead heard it, turn around, took their picture and posted it online. It ruined everyone's life including hers. I thought we learned from this that airing things publicly is fraught with danger. I imagine there is a time and place for it, but very carefully with intention. https:/…

> It ruined everyone's life including hers. Source? Last I heard the two men were hired elsewhere fairly quickly. Their names are also hardly ever associated with the story.

She's working under another name professionally now, so she's doing okay enough.
Post reply on HN