31–40 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She has the (public) sympathy (of some fraction) of her direct (subordinate) team. You can have the loyalty of a couple of close coworkers and still be toxic for the company as a whole, if you don't have professional interactions with other teams, or with your own managers.
Last I saw the internal petition supporting her was at above 1,200. Stereotyping is doing a lot of work here, driving people's assumptions about Gebru.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She has the (public) sympathy (of some fraction) of her direct (subordinate) team. You can have the loyalty of a couple of close coworkers and still be toxic for the company as a whole, if you don't have professional interactions with other teams, or with your own managers.
Last I saw the internal petition supporting her was at above 1,200. Stereotyping is doing a lot of work here, driving people's assumptions about Gebru.
1. If someone is to sign a petition for Gebru, what could they lose?
2. If someone were to speak out, under their name, against Gebru, what could they lose?
3. If someone is neutral on the issue and a pro Gebru petition gets passed around asking for support, what is the path of least resistance?
See also https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t...
Anyone getting tired of those toxic PC enthusiasts who stirs a fight in a team accusing its leadership for being incorrect on sensitive issues? I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some oth…
Anyone getting tired of those toxic PC enthusiasts who stirs a fight in a team accusing its leadership for being incorrect on sensitive issues? I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some oth…
I'm not seeing the connection between your comment and the Gerbu's firing. As I understand it Gerbu was hired as an academic to do research into AI ethics (her field of study). She was fired, in part, due to a disagreement around the contents of a paper she was publishing. Where is the sidewalking into engineering matters?
That seems like common sense.
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…
> ...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... I agree I wouldn't want her reporting to me, but is it really that hard to fire someone in California? From the outside Google management seems to endorse solidly left-leaning politics, so while anything is possible it seems unlikely that they objected to her views or act…
I had an experience once where a toxic, delusional, pathological liar of an employee was hired and started making up wild accusations about their coworkers on day 1. They then proceeded to do no work and had their role at the company progressively minimized so that they could have satisfactory performance for how little they were doing (and couldn't do much damage). There was no way the company was going to fire them and thankfully after a couple of years they decided to quit, despite making their entire team miserable that whole time.
Anyone getting tired of those toxic PC enthusiasts who stirs a fight in a team accusing its leadership for being incorrect on sensitive issues? I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some oth…
You can't possibly be for real. You don't know her qualifications, so you assume she doesn't have any. Then you come up with a straw-man of "non-engineers lacking skills" and assign that to her! You're more willing to assign traits you made up to her than look up what she's actually capable of!
*Given her background/race, we can't actually rule out the possibility that she got carried through the ranks by AA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don’t believe anyone has claimed she said “I will resign on date XXX.” The wording I think she and Dean have said she used was “or I will work on a last date” or something. As in “or I’ll work on figuring out what my last date at google will be.”
> Cynthia Yeung, an industry veteran who spent five years at Google, put it bluntly: "Maybe the trade-off should be more clearly spelled out so researchers can make informed decisions before they accept a job offer: You get paid academic salaries in exchange for intellectual freedom, and you get paid Silicon Valley salaries in exchange for allowing your name/likeness to be used for brand/PR purposes and your research…
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…
> ...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... I agree I wouldn't want her reporting to me, but is it really that hard to fire someone in California? From the outside Google management seems to endorse solidly left-leaning politics, so while anything is possible it seems unlikely that they objected to her views or act…
I think it has to do with lawsuits being highly visible whereas underperforming employees are sort of an invisible cost. So, the risk assessment focuses on the rare but highly visible occurrence rather than the ongoing cost of continuing to employ someone who isn’t productive.
Just guessing. I don’t really understand this phenomenon.