Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 460 posts

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#131

Post by iab »

tw04 wrote: post #95
tomcam wrote: post #24

I 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?

Because the entire reason for hiring someone like this is to find issues with what you're doing and stop them. The entire position is a pre-emptive move to stop government from stepping in to regulate the company. If you fire the person the second they talk about something they feel you're doing wrong, it kind of defeats the entire purpose (IMO). You literally hired this person to the e-brake on your AI program and t…

Exactly - your last paragraph is the crux for me. They could have been fired for no reason, and no notice under the most common at-will agreements. The system does not favor employees at all, and I wish we were all more angry at that.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#132

Post by InsomniacL »

woah wrote: post #125
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, 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…

Google tried to prevent her from publishing a paper, which is outside of their normal practice, then dissembled about what happened (pretending internal reviewers are anonymous, for example)

Even if the internal reviews aren't anonymous, if you send your manager a letter demanding something or you're leaving, they're probably not going to give you it regardless.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#133

Post by BitwiseFool »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, 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…

I've noticed a trend where toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause, usually something related to social justice. It's effective and usually short circuits the public's willingness to see the nuance of the issue.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#134

Post by js8 »

tines wrote: post #126
js8 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

Since when does firing people constitute ownership? I (partially) own the government (in theory, if it's a democracy). I don't own the company that I work for.

Yeah, but you're making a legal, not moral, argument. I argue that we often consider it unethical for government to silence its citizens, regardless of the law governing that country. Why we accept this in private companies? Should that be the nature of the ownership and why?

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#135

Post by GVIrish »

uh_uh wrote: post #128
woah wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tried to prevent her from publishing a paper, which is outside of their normal practice, then dissembled about what happened (pretending internal reviewers are anonymous, for example)

Didn't they push back on the publication because the paper was lacking in certain regards? IIRC it failed to take into account relevant recent papers, for example. Which probably could have been fixed if they didn't submit as late as they did.

The paper was submitted on time, other papers at Google were submitted for review after they were released. By Jeff Dean's own admission the paper was approved for release.

The demand for retraction was initially given while refusing to state what the reason(s) for the demand were. Only after the meeting where they demanded she retract the paper did they belatedly agree to read her the feedback that they stated as the reason. They wouldn't even let her read it first hand.

Ultimately it seems like Google could have plainly stated their issues with the paper from the start, and that said issues were not so serious that they merited a demand for retraction.

There are a number of things that just don't add up. Even if you take it at face value that Gebru's ultimatum demands were unreasonable, there are several problems with how the situation got to that point in the first place.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#136

Post by uh_uh »

tomcam wrote: post #24

I 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?

Not only that, but she threatened Google with a lawsuit _before_ any of the current drama happened (excerpt from her email with regards to the recent firing/resignation):

> I’m always amazed at how people can continue to do thing after thing like this and then turn around and ask me for some sort of extra DEI work or input. This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google (which is when they backed off--before that Google lawyers were prepared to throw us under the bus and our leaders were following as instructed) and the next day I get some random “impact award.” Pure gaslighting.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#137

Post by marcus_holmes »

jjcon wrote: post #129
js8 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think the primary reason for this is because people (generally speaking) in democratic societies share control of their government (for the people by the people etc). This is not true of company->employee relationships. It is assumed that if you join a company you share their values and if you no longer share their values the barrier to leave and join another is quite low. People have different values and that is f…

This. A country is governed by its leaders for its people. The leaders have a responsibility to the people to act on their behalf in their benefit.

Companies are managed by an executive team on behalf of, and for the benefit of, the shareholders. Not the employees.

Shareholders can, and do, criticise management and demand they do things differently/better, because management is ultimately responsible to them. Likewise the people can, and do, criticse governments because the government is responsible to them.

Management are not responsible to employees. Though it makes sense to not annoy them too much. But if it's a question of shareholder or employee satisfaction, then legally there's no choice.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#138

Post by themaninthedark »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #100
tomcam wrote: post #63

Earlier 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.

James Darmore

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#139

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

woah wrote: post #125
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, 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…

Google tried to prevent her from publishing a paper, which is outside of their normal practice, then dissembled about what happened (pretending internal reviewers are anonymous, for example)

Again, I'm not really trying to defend Google one way or the other. At the end of the day it seemed like Gebru published a paper that was quite critical of how Google intends to make a sizable portion of their revenue, and anyone should understand that when you do that in a large company, it's going to get extra scrutiny. And it could very well be that the whole purpose of Google's "ethical AI" team in the first place is to just provide a "veneer of morality" over what are some fairly unnerving practices and consequences of AI. But regardless, the honorable thing then for anyone on that team is to simply resign, say that "I don't agree with Google's values", and find someplace else to do your work (it's not like these people couldn't get highly paid jobs elsewhere). Instead they're throwing tantrums.

Re: Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

#140

Post by fatbird »

username90 wrote: post #70
fatbird wrote: post #40

Earlier 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…

Google didn't fire her for her research, they fired her for being toxic. She was toxic because some of her coworkers didn't accept her research, but most people would have handled the situation without being toxic and if she did she wouldn't have gotten fired.

The only evidence of toxicity was an email she sent after being forced to retract a paper that she wouldn't have to retract under proper academic circumstances, based on feedback they weren't even going to provide to her.

That's not toxic, that's anger. One angry incident, justified or not, does not make the case for firing a "toxic" employee.

Post reply on HN