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

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by waihtis »

xyzzyz wrote: post #39
almost_usual wrote: post #35

> 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…

Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.

There is intellectual freedom if you have enough cash in the bank to last you a lifetime. Then, feel free to offend anyone with your opinions as you cannot die from starvation.

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

#42

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

busterarm wrote: post #38
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

That's a commitment to resign. Many large companies have a policy of walking out a resigned employee immediately.

I’m not arguing that she did or didn’t resign, just that she didn’t say “or my last date is the 10th” or anything else that clear.

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

#43

Post by that_guy_iain »

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…

For me, it's the fact it seems Google was quite willing to keep her around and keep allowing her be so toxic people felt they had to go to HR and anonymously give feedback and that they didn't just fire her straight away for publishing a paper they didn't like.

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

#44

Post by Ansil849 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #39
almost_usual wrote: post #35

> 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…

Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.

> doxed by New York Times.

Are you thinking of any specific case where the Times doxed someone for practicing intellectual freedom?

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

#45

Post by busterarm »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #42
busterarm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a commitment to resign. Many large companies have a policy of walking out a resigned employee immediately.

I’m not arguing that she did or didn’t resign, just that she didn’t say “or my last date is the 10th” or anything else that clear.

My point is that that's not necessary. It's a clear commitment to having an end date.

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

#46

Post by niij »

Ansil849 wrote: post #44
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.

> doxed by New York Times. Are you thinking of any specific case where the Times doxed someone for practicing intellectual freedom?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/22/nyt-is-threatening-my-...

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

#47

Post by lmm »

anu7df wrote: post #28
totorovirus wrote: post #23

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…

If you don't know her qualifications outside of ethical AI, you can't possibly know if "Gebru is doing exactly that in Google" People's motivations and ambitions vary. She may be very skilled in all things AI and yet choose the role she had and choose that hill to die on.

It's like when you see an official's nephew get a plum job at a large corp. Sure, it's possible that they legitimately got there on their merits, but if you give them the benefit of the doubt then you'll get taken for a ride by the bad actors, and you don't have the time or ability to check the details.

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

#48

Post by metabagel »

metabagel wrote: post #40
roenxi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

Employment in California is “at will”, meaning that absent extenuating circumstances (such as a written contract) either the employee or the employer can terminate the relationship at any time, without cause. So, it’s not hard to terminate someone in California, but nonetheless employers are hesitant to terminate employees without cause, probably for fear of being sued. I think it has to do with lawsuits being highly…

What makes it even more perplexing for me is that most companies require you to sign an arbitration agreement, which significantly reduces both the cost of a legal conflict as well as the risk of an extreme verdict being rendered.

And yet, my perception is that companies often resist terminating problem or unproductive employees due to the perceived risk of being sued.

Discriminating against a member of a protected class is against the law, so perhaps they are worried about being accused of that?

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

#49

Post by marcus_holmes »

waihtis wrote: post #41
xyzzyz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.

There is intellectual freedom if you have enough cash in the bank to last you a lifetime. Then, feel free to offend anyone with your opinions as you cannot die from starvation.

ah, the "gentleman scientists" of whom we hear so much when learning scientific history.

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

#50

Post by bra-ket »

almost_usual wrote: post #35

> 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…

this case had nothing to do with censorship though. It was Gebru' unprofessional conduct - she gave ultimatum to her managers demanding to disclose names of the reviewers who criticized her work or she would resign, and broadcasting emails to entire team literally calling for sabotage.

Her behavior fits the definition of 'toxic employee', it was unprofessional by any standard.

Here is Jeff Dean's letter sent to the Google Research team with the details of what actually happened: :https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2kYWDXwhzYnq8ebVtuk9CqQ...

Post reply on HN