Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#2Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#3Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#4Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#5Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#6Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#7Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#8The mentioned article has some more details:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...
Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#9When Gebru presented her demand letter and resignation threat James Dean probably thought she had no leverage and moved quickly against her. That was an extremely poor calculation.
Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist
#101 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit.
2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee.
I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless.
Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.