Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 104 posts

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#11

Post by Analemma_ »

hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this:

Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this paper as what must have seemed like a clean reason when she made the threat to resign, but taking her up on that threat has blown up in their face because everyone can see their supposed rationale doesn't hold water.

Taken as a whole, neither side looks particularly sympathetic, which makes it easy for partisans to latch onto the bad behavior of whomever they dislike.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#12

Post by panny »

hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

Point 1 sounds a bit like the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Mao invited critics to openly express opinions on how to improve the communist party, then one year later, rounded up those who did under the Anti-Rightist Campaign for persecution and executions.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#13

Post by StavrosK »

Analemma_ wrote: post #11
hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this pape…

I mostly agree, but on the other hand, if you were Google and wanted to fire Gebru, how would you do it? It's not like there's a better alternative, just firing her normally would probably have been worse.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#14

Post by hpoe »

panny wrote: post #12
hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

Point 1 sounds a bit like the Hundred Flowers Campaign. Mao invited critics to openly express opinions on how to improve the communist party, then one year later, rounded up those who did under the Anti-Rightist Campaign for persecution and executions.

I think there is a little bit of a difference between a prominent researcher being let go from Google and a revolutionary dictator performing a genocidal purge of people on suspicion of disloyalty.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#15

Post by nmfisher »

Analemma_ wrote: post #11
hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this pape…

It’s abundantly clear that Google was itching to get rid of her. They probably couldn’t believe her luck when she (stupidly) tried to bully them with not just a threat of resignation, but an actual statement of “I will resign on date XXX”.

I also don’t believe that Google would have done this for no reason (given her behaviour during the LeCunn incident) so I’m sympathetic towards Google’s conduct. If Gebru had simply come out and said “Google tried to censor my paper and so I was forced to resign”, I would be thinking very differently.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#17

Post by jasonv »

nmfisher wrote: post #15
Analemma_ wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this pape…

It’s abundantly clear that Google was itching to get rid of her. They probably couldn’t believe her luck when she (stupidly) tried to bully them with not just a threat of resignation, but an actual statement of “I will resign on date XXX”. I also don’t believe that Google would have done this for no reason (given her behaviour during the LeCunn incident) so I’m sympathetic towards Google’s conduct. If Gebru had simpl…

She also claimed she was previously going to sue Google. She claimed it loudly and publicly. As long as we’re accounting...

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#18

Post by vfclists »

Analemma_ wrote: post #11
hpoe wrote: post #10

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - 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…

I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this pape…

What exactly does toxic mean if she has the sympathy of her coworkers?

Toxic to management, embarrassing to her line managers or toxic to the colleagues she co-produces her work with?

Was she toxic to the company's profits, toxic to the company's profits, or both?

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#19

Post by throw_m239339 »

bosswipe wrote: post #7

When 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.

Minor nitpick but I think he's called 'Jeff Dean', one of the co-author of the map-reduce paper. It will be interesting to see whether Google CEO is ready to sacrifice the 'nerd faction' in favor of the 'intersectional faction' of Google, or if he is ready to take the heat.

Re: Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

#20

Post by adjkant »

It's really hard to think from reading that memo that they have any intention of making changes related to the core issue. It more or less read to me "look at all the things we're already doing" + "oops this really was a fuck up wasn't it, but too late I guess so we're going to try more things we were already doing to fix this".

In context, it only makes sense. Google is not going to admit in a memo that they have a structural problem with either race or ethics, but it still is ever so slightly disappointing to see this treated more or less as an internal PR issue and not a moment to look in the mirror.

The real mismatch here is what people think the core issue is vs what Google thinks the core issue is. From the memo, Google seems to think that some processes or policies would have prevented this. What it seems to me is that the general public sees a misalignment / direct conflict of values between Gebru's work and points and Google's profit / business. I think Google knows this internally but can't say the quiet part out loud.

Post reply on HN