Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by thu2111 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

throwaway19937 wrote: post #97

thu2111 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Google incurs legal fees regardless of the merits of the case. They are already losing in the court of public opinion. IMO they should have given her $3-5 million dollars and an NDA when accepting her resignation.

They really aren't, at least not where I live.

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

#102

Post by academicthrow » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #99

academicthrow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, what you've stated is false: your last sentence lacks any logical thought. You need to check your racism.

"If your admissions criteria gives "bonus points" to people of a certain race, a randomly chosen person who was admitted of that race will be weaker than people not of that race."

Please point out the flaw(s) in my reasoning. I've clarified it a little bit. If you think my clarification significantly changes what I was trying to say, then I apologize for not being clear enough.

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

#103

Post by bra-ket » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #100

bra-ket wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"corroborated" stories of dozens It's a "boy who cried wolf" for me. I've seen these activists promoting lies to us the entire summer of protests for completely made-up causes. I've seen them distorting facts and pushing misinformation through media. I've also seen them bullying people via social media 'witch hunts', which is happening now with Jeff Dean, Nando de Freitas and whoever stands in their way. The whole a…

> The whole activism movement is toxic and whoever brings it to the workplace. Why do you find people that are putting in the work to bring fairer, more just, and more even-handed application of human rights to all corners of society "toxic"? What are you afraid of, or believe is "toxic", by removing the gap in privilege* that exists between white men and everyone else? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privileg…

The ends do not justify the means.

What I see is a bunch of bullies forcing their opinions on everyone else, spreading lies and propaganda on media, attacking and 'cancelling' anyone who stands in their way.

Whatever seed of 'social justice' motivation was there, the activist movement completely discredited themselves, and the ideas they so aggressively promote. And the more I interact with them the more it seems their primary motivation is promoting themselves.

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

#104

Post by jp0d » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

My initial reaction to this was to support the underdog and vilify the big corporation. But then I read her responses online and found it to be extremely unprofessional. And also read her interactions with "Yann Lecun", someone who I respect a lot. The way she attacked Yann, even after his apologies is unacceptable. It's fine to be an SJW but it's not okay to bully others for your beliefs.