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

151–160 of 179 posts

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

#151

Post by [deleted] »

j64mt41ebg wrote: post #142
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…

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 h…

[deleted]

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

#152

Post by pseudalopex »

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…

5) A variant of 4. She gave notice. Google must have put her on gardening leave. Firing her would just give her a chance to sue. Google wouldn't make that mistake.

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

#153

Post by falcolas »

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…

However, we have gotten communication on the matter. What occurred has been explained:

She did not get a chance to offer up her resignation, Google terminated their employment relationship before that opportunity arose.

And thus, it is completely reasonable to boil it down to:

Google fired Timnit Gebru.

Words matter. Google is lying when they claim that Timnit Gebru resigned. Google should absolutely be called out for this lie.

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

#155

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites.

When the triggering event involved a collaboration involving non-Google parties, that became pretty much impossible.

> Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?

Maybe you shouldn't, but not everyone outside of Google is you. Other people in the field of AI ethics might want to know, because Google’s practices when it comes to employee research have a significant impact on how publications from Google authors are approached. And people who might consider working at Google, especially in the same field, have an interest in information about the working environment, positive or negative.

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

#156

Post by [deleted] »

kd913 wrote: post #99
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you know the name Jeff Dean, who seems to have taken a personal role in this drama. It's rather telling that your entire perspective is to demonize and diminish Gebru, who you don't even bother to name in your criticisms. Why are you trying to establish some "level" distinction between Damore and Gebru. These aren't even remotely comparable situations. Public attention and scrutiny is why we're talkin…

I didn't know who Jeff Dean is, other than the fact that he is another AI researcher at Google. My work involves low-latency network drivers, not at all the field of AI. Fine, there are AI stars too, but the article could lead about what they have done and why they are important no? A discussion involving Jim Keller would lead to his contributions to x86, Apple A10 series, Tesla chips and Zen. I don't want a hand wav…

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one

It's mostly the side that supports Google management that is focussed on it as the primary issue; the side backing Gebru is more focussed on the triggering event itself, the unusual (for Google AI, and apparently for the field in general, as far as internal reviews go) review process applied to the paper on which Gebru was lead author and which she was told to retract, with the resigned/fired issue as an additional indicator of Google management being deceitful, but not the primary issue.

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

#158

Post by smartician »

uh_uh wrote: post #117

Even if she didn't resign (which is questionable, because she did send an ultimatum), is it wrong for Google to fire a person who writes stuff like this? > I’m always amazed at how people can continue to do thing after thing like this and then turn around and ask me for some sort of extra DEI work or input. This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired fem…

For some reason there is a subculture within Google where employees act antagonistic towards their employer and go all Pikachu-faced when they're then terminated. Then they speak out and claim they were retaliated against, whereas people who worked for conventional companies would think, "well, what did you expect?"

It is part of Google's culture to not blindly agree with leadership on every issue and you're encouraged to voice differing opinions, but I guess some take this too far in the other direction and assume that every kind of negative feedback is appreciated and "protected".

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

#159

Post by dragonwriter »

ballenf wrote: post #60
zorpner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

In that case an employee gave a resignation date of 11/15. Employer cut off the employment two weeks early and court ruled that it shouldn't be considered a resignation, but instead a termination by employer. What's the parallel between those facts and the dispute here? Just not seeing any applicable precedent.

> In that case an employee gave a resignation date of 11/15. Employer cut off the employment two weeks early and court ruled that it shouldn't be considered a resignation, but instead a termination by employer.

> What's the parallel between those facts and the dispute here?

That it's, at best for Google, the exact same thing, except that Google gave Gebru, in writing, an explicit, non-resignation reason for the early separation, making it even less disputable that it was a firing and not merely accepting the (disputed) resignation? Paraphrased most favorably to the Google management narrative, Gebru said “do X or I will conduct discussions around setting a date on which I will resign” and Google management said “we accept your resignation and, further, based on an internal group e-mail you sent after this dispute started which we find unacceptable, we are ending your employment immediately.”

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

#160

Post by dragonwriter »

iainmerrick wrote: post #51
alisonkisk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fuzzy. If someone in a heated dispute says, "I resign, effective some time in the next month", what do you do? Keep them on until you agree in a date? Even if they give a date like "Dec 31", do you let them keep all their access to sensitive company data, or you lock them out for security's sake and settle the legal and payroll paperwork separately?

Easy -- if the contract has a notice period, they go on “gardening leave”. It’s common for this to be specifically covered in contracts. If there’s no notice period (legal only in “at will” states, I believe) then it would seem reasonable to fire them immediately.

All states are at-will states but not all employment in an at-will state is at-will (at-will states allow and make default at-will terms, but specific employment contracts may still set other terms.)
Post reply on HN