141–150 of 460 posts
I find it interesting how, in the other current thread about an antitrust suit against Google ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 ) that people there are criticizing Google's lack of ethics, and in this thread people are criticizing a team in Google whose goal is to try to get Google to act more ethically.
> accepted her resignation immediately In saying "resignation", CNN is presenting the management framing -- as many people have pointed out, she was fired. Bloomberg states both sides of that: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/google-ai... As does The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/7/22158501/timnit-gebru-tea...
"Thanks for making your conditions clear. We cannot agree to #1 and #2 as you are requesting. We respect your decision to leave Google as a result, and we are accepting your resignation."
I find it interesting how, in the other current thread about an antitrust suit against Google ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 ) that people there are criticizing Google's lack of ethics, and in this thread people are criticizing a team in Google whose goal is to try to get Google to act more ethically.
I guess the 'bias and inequality in AI' is less striking a cord for the HN crowd than 'fair business practices'
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.
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.
My 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…
Maybe if more employees used their leverage to improve companies from within we could see real progress in work environments and corporate ethics without having to wait on legislation or lawsuits to force companies to change.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The paper she was fired over was leaked, though, and it's.. not novel. It's the same things everyone else has been saying for years (global warming bad, also don't build a racist speech reproducer), and Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship and honestly would make the paper better to…
>Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship. You have a really funny world-view where compelled speech doesn't fall in the censorship bucket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What about the paper trail she left on Twitter?
> accepted her resignation immediately In saying "resignation", CNN is presenting the management framing -- as many people have pointed out, she was fired. Bloomberg states both sides of that: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-16/google-ai... As does The Verge: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/7/22158501/timnit-gebru-tea...
I have no idea why this matters. Timnit gave an ultimatum (i.e. do this or I'll leave). Google agreed to her condition of parting way. This is like I go to my boss and ask for a $1 billion dollars. Otherwise, I'll leave. Then, my boss decides that I should leave since the boss can't give me $1b. Then, I keep telling my friends that "well, I'm actually fired.". huh?
Employee: "If you don't fire my manager and give me a $1M bonus, I'm resigning, date to be confirmed."
Company: "Ummmm, no. Thanks for resigning, let's make that date today."