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

181–190 of 460 posts

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

#181

Post by ashtonkem »

js8 wrote: post #114
pontus wrote: post #99

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…

> 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…

Freedom of speech has always applied only to the freedom to say things without prosecution. Any extension of that idea into the private sector is completely ungrounded in what the law actually does.

The idea that we can’t criticize companies in a thread full of criticism of Google is just plain silly. Of course you can criticize companies. But if you’re criticizing your employer, you do have to accept the risk of there being private consequences. This has always been the case.

Heck, it’s not just limited to employers. If I was to walk into my local Starbucks and make a nuisance of myself by screaming, I’ll be banned. That’s not a violation of my free speech rights, nobody is prosecuting me, but it’s an obvious consequence of my speech.

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

#182

Post by xenihn »

fatbird wrote: post #176
xenihn wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her spat with the Facebook guy was before that.

That was a public argument on her core area of research. Google literally hired her to do that work. Being professionally assertive isn't toxic.

Do you think Facebook would agree with you? Great news for her if so.

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

#183

Post by cbozeman »

nullifidian wrote: post #91
atsjie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Timnit Gebru: Google and big tech are 'institutionally racist'" https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55281862 It's good to be critical and reflect on the company you're working for. There are bad cultures and attitudes in any big company, not just tech. But if you're going to sprout your opinions publically about your (ex)-employer like that, sorry, but I wouldn't want her in my team. She sounds like too much of a he…

>Her work must be truly extraordinary I'm pretty sure her work as an ethicist can be summarized as "Any application of AI/ML must be stopped until it is absolutely GUARANTEED that there won't be anything that could be deemed discriminatory by proponents of critical race/gender theory." Which is obviously an untenable position for a tech company. I think she will be happy when we develop natural language understanding…

> when we develop natural language understanding to the degree where we could implement an automatic critical theory censor, that would check for undesirable biases.

That sounds like more of a nightmare scenario than having to deal with this person... Its hard to even know where to begin with how something like this could go off the rails easily.

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

#184

Post by jjcon »

js8 wrote: post #156
jjcon wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It is assumed that if you join a company you share their values More precisely, it is assumed that you share the values of the owners. > Move on, join up and use your time to help lift values you hold, don’t just spend all your time tearing down others. Respect the fact that others can have values different than your own. I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of spee…

> I see a big problem with this argument, would you say that to e.g. Belarussian freedom of speech activists?

I gave multiple points in my post as to why governments are different than companies (it was in fact the main point of my post). Please read it again.

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

#185

Post by room500 »

fatbird wrote: post #140
username90 wrote: post #70

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.

I disagree. There were several incidents where she appears toxic (and we only know about the ones made public).

1. Absolutely refusing to update her paper with feedback from a colleague - the whole purpose of the internal review

2. Demanding that Google reveal who gave her critical feedback - presumably to attack them in some way

3. Sending an e-mail to her superiors/colleagues, making ultimatums and threatening to leave if her demands were not met

4. Sending a message to a group at Google, telling them to abandon any attempts to help Google with diversity initiatives and instead start attacking their co-workers

5. Publicly blaming Google and saying that she was "fired" for an e-mail. She was relying on information assymetry, knowing that Google would be hesitant to respond fully to all allegations

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

#186

Post by pron »

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 don't think anyone would claim corporations are democracies, but the view that the corporation is its CEO and/or its shareholders isn't so obvious, either. There are clearly cultural differences here (e.g. see the situation in Germany [1]), but I don't think that the American view of what a corporation is and who it serves is necessarily the only reasonable one.

I don't know any more details on this matter than those in the article, but I don't see why you assume that if employees -- well paid or otherwise -- make demands of management then it must be them who are toxic, or, indeed, that anyone is.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany

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

#187

Post by jasonvorhe »

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…

That's quite the statement considering that there's lots of PoC, women, queer people, sexual abuse victims, etc who have been suffering through toxic work environments for ages. What makes this group "the most toxic group" you've ever heard of?

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

#188

Post by tines »

js8 wrote: post #134
tines wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was only addressing your use of the idea of "ownership," not the question of whether private parties silencing people is good.

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

#190

Post by xenihn »

room500 wrote: post #185
fatbird wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. There were several incidents where she appears toxic (and we only know about the ones made public). 1. Absolutely refusing to update her paper with feedback from a colleague - the whole purpose of the internal review 2. Demanding that Google reveal who gave her critical feedback - presumably to attack them in some way 3. Sending an e-mail to her superiors/colleagues, making ultimatums and threatening to l…

Classic Cluster B behavior.
Post reply on HN