Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

Post by busterarm » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 4:56 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #85

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.

That's not SOP at Google except in very limited circumstances. When I resigned, I told my manager and we negotiated an exit date 2 weeks after. I volunteered to give up my laptop early etc and not come into the office, but they really wanted me to finish up. People who steal or leak, however, could be terminated immediately and walked out by security. I guess also if you worked on a competitive product and changed to…

Post by busterarm » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 6:18 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #92

busterarm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that just tells you how Google felt about this particular relationship. It still doesn't translate to a firing.

I use the term "terminated". her employment was terminated immediately on the spot for cause.

Post by academicthrow » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #61

academicthrow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've been in academia for awhile you've seen this happen time and time again. Student does excellently in undergrad, masters, phd coursework* but when it comes to making real technical contributions, they hit a wall. It was a clever move by her to use her pedigree to pivot into "AI ethics" where the standards for publishing are much lower (as we can see from this draft that was circulated). *Given her background…

> *Given her background/race, we can't actually rule out the possibility that she got carried through the ranks by AA. The reality is that she hard to work three times as hard as a white man to make it: effort to learn the knowledge, and double effort to overcome the effects of sexism and racism, of which you've perfectly demonstrated.

Post by throwaway19937 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 7:04 PM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #80

pseingatl wrote: post #51

Three times he uses the word "departure" as if this were her decision. The last reference uses the word "left," reinforcing the position that Google didn't fire her. Have no doubt: this CYA text was massaged and went through several HR and in-house GC revisions, and maybe even a few round-trips to outside labor litigation counsel. In other words, this statement is pure CYA and litigation-defensive. They're terrified…

In what legal universe could she claim any damages at all, after making it clear that she was quite happy to resign if her ultimatum wasn't met? And with no evidence anywhere that her 'departure' was racially motivated? Are Californian courts really so biased that they'd see racism in a situation where the employee had been planning to sue her own employer, in an at will state?

Post by malcolmgreaves » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

academicthrow wrote: post #95

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> *Given her background/race, we can't actually rule out the possibility that she got carried through the ranks by AA. The reality is that she hard to work three times as hard as a white man to make it: effort to learn the knowledge, and double effort to overcome the effects of sexism and racism, of which you've perfectly demonstrated.

It might be true that she faced more hurdles than her white peers to get to where she is. That is irrelevant to the question of whether she was weaker than her peers. That is a simple statistical problem: If your program has lower admission standards for a certain group of people , a randomly chosen person from that group will be weaker than their peers.