Shame they didn't keep her around.
Google deserves to reap the ideology it sows.
Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
111–120 of 460 posts
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the academic standard for research, and the original motivation for tenure, allows for researchers to criticize anyone, including their own institution, as long as it's done and presented as the proper product of research. In other words, if a researcher is doing their research properly, it shouldn't matter if they're attacking their own institution or even colleagues, because it passes scientific muster and…
You’re 100% right. A job at a FAANG company isn’t a tenured position. Let her go get a job at Harvard and trash them all she wants.
I think you're missing the point: companies like Google set up research units like this to act like tenured positions, like mini-universities, and then employ academics like Gebru just so they get the credibility that comes with employing them. "See, we're not all about profit, we support basic research in this area, even when it criticizes our other work."
Critical to that credibility is actually having the same standards as Harvard with respect to allowing the researchers to publish what they will, whether or not they're the target. By appearing to fire Gebru because her paper was insufficiently pro-Google, they damaged their whole purpose of having an ethical AI group.
The demands of the group may seem childish or absurdly far-reaching, but if Google wants to rebuild their credibility here, this is the standard they have to hit. Otherwise, their own researchers have less credibility because their output will be viewed as "approved by Google management", not real research. This is critical if they need to say "our own AI ethicists say this is ok."
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#113My god, people need to calm down. I understand that some may be upset about things their employer does and that's well within their rights. If their employer is knowingly engaging in illegal activity then by all means, be a whistle blower and set ultimatums, but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interv…
> but this has gone too far.
Honest question - which part has gone too far?
Feel like there are currently a lot of parts.
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#114My god, people need to calm down. I understand that some may be upset about things their employer does and that's well within their rights. If their employer is knowingly engaging in illegal activity then by all means, be a whistle blower and set ultimatums, but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interv…
> I understand that some may be upset about things their employer does and that's well within their rights.
It is within their rights, true. But it's not just a question of law, but also ethics.
We accept that, in democratic societies, we can freely criticize our government and still stay the citizens. There are good principal and practical reasons to have it so. However, in private companies, for some reason, we don't accept it.
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#115> The demands in the letter include the removal of a Google vice president, Megan Kacholia, from the team's management chain; for transparency surrounding Gebru's departure; and for Google's head of AI, Jeff Dean, and Kacholia to apologize for how Gebru was treated. I would like to know which role played Kacholia in this. Just a scapegoat for management or was she directly involved?
Kacholia sent the email informing Gebru she is no longer employed, effective immediately.
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#116Drama queens, literally
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#117Wow, Google's ethical AI group sounds like the most toxic group of individuals I've ever heard of.
I'm going to sidestep the debate about whether Gebru was "fired" or she "resigned", because that debate primarily centers on how one defines the words. But clearly she did do this: She sent a letter that made a bunch of (IMO) outrageous demands, outrageous because it essentially attacked other people at the company, and said that if her demands were not met, that she would leave. In this case, the ethical AI group is doing the same thing: demanding a manager not have a role with them, demanding (again IMO) unwarranted apologies from other people, and worse, demanding the rehiring of someone has shown that she has no respect for others in her workplace.
A bunch of overpaid toxic babies from my opinion. I don't care who you are, going around demanding "my way or the highway" in a large company just makes you an asshole. If they don't like what happened they should simply resign with integrity and move on.
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly Does it also require a certain intellectual integrity to do properly? Because claiming that you were "immediately fired" online, then later having to "clarify" that you actually submitted your resignation because some demands weren't met sounds pretty dishonest to me.
That is not an accurate description of events.
I'm just going by the CNN article and her tweets, which include the response from some manager, Megan:
As a result, we are accepting your resignation immediately, effective today.
https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364732480958467
Looks like Timnit Gebru made an ultimatum and offered her resignation if the terms of the ultimatum were not met. Google accepted her resignation and chose to have it effective immediately (as is often the case when you resign and a company feels like it would not be beneficial to have a longer departure period).
It's not like I'm taking only the words of others. I'm reading what Gebru herself chose to put out there.
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re 100% right. A job at a FAANG company isn’t a tenured position. Let her go get a job at Harvard and trash them all she wants.
We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. Yet when a woman of color does it, "oh they are their own company and can do what they want and it's her fault for trying to be ethical in this space in industry." What?? Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here.
>Yet when a woman of color does it
Maybe the reason it isn't praised in this case isn't due to her being a woman of color but due to other differences in this case and those that are praised?
Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO
#120I have contempt for a lot of the things that Google does, but I have a sincere question about all of this. Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? I would say the same about Peter Norvig or Guido van Rossum. If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?
> Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? [..] If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?
Because owning a company doesn't necessarily mean owning people working for it.
Ask yourself the same question about the government, why should your government be expected to keep you as citizen if you criticize their dirty laundry in public.