Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #133

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…

I completely agree words matter. They matter immensely because of what they communicate. That's my point. It seems plainly evident at this point that neither word is aiding communication, because we're arguing about what the words mean, rather than the facts of the situation. A sentence saying she was fired and a sentence saying she resigned both miss too much of the situation to be called clear, honest communication, which matters.

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

#142

Post by j64mt41ebg » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

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…

My take: Google and the researcher had some issues around internal review of a paper that could be perceived as criticism of Google. Google ordered her to withdraw the paper from review at an external event. The researcher demanded to know names of the internal Google reviewers. The researcher said she will resign on a later date if her demands are not fulfilled. Google did not reveal the internal reviewers and let her go immediately.

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

#143

Post by worker767424 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

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…

> Although being an at-will job, the legality is rather moot.

The only interesting implication is unemployment, but if it's a termination, Google might tell the unemployment office it was for insubordination.

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

#144

Post by hnuser123456 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

xadhominemx wrote: post #119

apta wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Much of what was regarded as “woke SJW nonsense” 15 years ago is now completely mainstream. I’m sure even you — who clearly has some preoccupation with progressive social thought as you post on about “SJWs” multiple times per day on average — have some beliefs that would have been considered insufferably woke and obnoxious by people like you in 2003.

The things that I believe are real social justice have no hint of becoming mainstream anytime in the next 20 years. SJW, in the connotation, is a term reserved for extremists, and there's no shortage of them, and they deserve the same scrutiny as any other political extremist.

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

#145

Post by monocasa » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:04 PM UTC

worker767424 wrote: post #53

brandmeyer wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The other bit I'd add is Google will be silent externally for legal reasons, and not to read into that. The internal messaging was likely truthy and omitted things. Timnit Gebru also omitted some important things in her twitter posts.

Google wasn't silent externally however. Jeff Dean wrote an article on the subject on Google's blog.

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

#146

Post by pseudalopex » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

NearAP wrote: post #124

sorenjan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technically speaking, how is that a problem? If your theory is right that Google was looking for a reason to fire her, then she shouldn't have given them a 'legal' one. At the end of the day, it boiled down to - she gave them an ultimatum and they called her bluff (this has nothing to do with whether her reasons were right or wrong; if her reasons were right and she really didn't want believe she could work under suc…

What makes you think it was a bluff?

The debate about her being fired or resigning is a debate about who to believe about what led up to it. People who think she resigned see her saying she was fired as evidence of a victim complex and publicity seeking. People who think she was fired see Google saying she resigned as evidence of unfair treatment and dishonesty.

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

#147

Post by j64mt41ebg » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

lsiebert wrote: post #96

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…

Basically google (edit: I should say executives at Google, 1500 other googlers have signed a petition supporting her) wanted her to retract her (and 7 co-authors) ethics paper, wouldn't give her clear reasons or work with her on it, and then fired her when she objected to that and other ways it wasn't living up to it's commitments.

She not only objected, but made it a deal breaker. She clearly said that she will resign on a later date if her demands are not meet. Google let her go immediately.

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

#148

Post by worker767424 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #114

google is learning the same lesson that the frog learned from the scorpion. get in bed with woke activists and what do you expect?

Bad PR for a while, maybe 20 employees quit in solidarity, then go you go back to printing money.

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

#149

Post by drivingmenuts » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #141

falcolas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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…

I completely agree words matter. They matter immensely because of what they communicate. That's my point. It seems plainly evident at this point that neither word is aiding communication, because we're arguing about what the words mean, rather than the facts of the situation. A sentence saying she was fired and a sentence saying she resigned both miss too much of the situation to be called clear, honest communication…

It’s no one’s business outside of the organization and the person. You may feel entitled to an explanation as an uninvolved third party, but I can’t think of any legal reason why you would be.

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

#150

Post by throwaway19937 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

alisonkisk wrote: post #9

SCUSKU wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tweet [1], seems less like an ultimatum and more of asking for an explanation, which management does not seem willing to provide. [1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334900391302098944

That tweet is the "conditions" part of the ultimatum. The other part was the "consequences" if the conditions are not met (the consequences were that she would resign at a to-be-determined date).

When you threaten to resign the other person may decide they don't want the headache of having you around.

She had already sent an email asking other people to stop their work on diversity. It's at best naive to think that Google (or any employer) would give her a few more weeks to lower morale or cause trouble.