Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by themaninthedark » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #94

ergocoder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

She gave a set of conditions and stated that if they couldn't be met, that she would work with Google to schedule a resignation date. Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing. If someone says, do this or I'll jump, and the other person pushes them, that's not the same thing as the person taking the leap on their own. The result might be the same, but the way the…

Someone says they will quit noon tomorrow if you don't meet their demands. You will not meet their demands. You tell them not to bother coming in tomorrow and disable their security badge, did you fire them?

They made the decision they did not want to work for you as had been previously agreed. You only changed the timetable.

To put this another way, if I tell my company that I will be quitting in 2 weeks and they tell me not to bother coming back to the office, did they fire me? I would not say they did.

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

#192

Post by Nullabillity » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

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)

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 plac…

The "honorable thing to do" would be to let them window-shop until they find someone willing to rubberstamp whatever they want?

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

#193

Post by cbozeman » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

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.

From what I understand, they didn't fire her, they accepted her resignation?

When you append, "Or I will leave" to a request and the company isn't interested in your request, you're resigning. You can dress it up in fancy language, but that's the bottom line.

Or did I miss something about this story?

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

#194

Post by fatbird » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

cbozeman wrote: post #183

nullifidian wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Indeed. Imagine how people of color feel at the possibility of an AI running ever-larger parts of society that has racism built right into it at the start because the people building it are blind to anything but the most obvious instances of it.

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

#195

Post by zaroth » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

tomdell wrote: post #179

uh_uh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excerpt from Jeff Dean's email: > Timnit co-authored a paper with four fellow Googlers as well as some external collaborators that needed to go through our review process (as is the case with all externally submitted papers). We’ve approved dozens of papers that Timnit and/or the other Googlers have authored and then published, but as you know, papers often require changes during the internal review process (or are e…

That claim by Jeff Dean has been more or less debunked. The real reason that Google demanded the paper not be published is that it is critical of models underlying the company’s fundamental business - the whole message from Jeff Dean is very misleading and states a bunch of other, unrelated things as the “real reason”.

It would be very helpful to point to sources for the claim that Jeff Dean's explanation is debunked, rather than just claiming it has been.

The timing of the submission for review, and the deadline for submission to publication seems like a simple factual statement that should be easily demonstrated as true or false.

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

#196

Post by uh_uh » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:19 PM UTC

tomdell wrote: post #179

uh_uh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excerpt from Jeff Dean's email: > Timnit co-authored a paper with four fellow Googlers as well as some external collaborators that needed to go through our review process (as is the case with all externally submitted papers). We’ve approved dozens of papers that Timnit and/or the other Googlers have authored and then published, but as you know, papers often require changes during the internal review process (or are e…

That claim by Jeff Dean has been more or less debunked. The real reason that Google demanded the paper not be published is that it is critical of models underlying the company’s fundamental business - the whole message from Jeff Dean is very misleading and states a bunch of other, unrelated things as the “real reason”.

Debunked by whom?

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

#197

Post by anonygler » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:20 PM UTC

This is why you don't feed the activist beast, which Google had been doing for years. They're utterly detached from reality and make progressively more insane demands and use wilder and wilder language.

"Data violence" is their new slogan. If an algorithm isn't utterly flawless out the gate, that's a "literal act of violence" against [insert group here]. I'm not even making up the "literal" part.

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

#198

Post by AlanYx » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

uh_uh wrote: post #136

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 Herlle…

That lawsuit threat is really a critical contextual element here. Having a manager who's openly threatening to sue the same company she acts as a manager for creates a host of complicated legal issues for the corporation.

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

#199

Post by pron » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:21 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

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)

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 plac…

Wouldn't the honourable thing be to first try to change how Google behaves and only if unsuccessful resign? Why is the assumption that employees shouldn't even try to influence the direction of their company? Why is doing so considered a tantrum?

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

#200

Post by nvrspyx » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:22 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #145

BitwiseFool wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

I think you're conflating "Karen" with "entitled asshole". There are tons of entitled assholes in this world and "Karens" are just one type. As another commenter mentioned, "Karen" is used for entitled, soccer-mom-types, especially for treating front-line workers like crap and attempting to get a manager for their demands. As for the right-wing association, I don't think being right-wing is inherent to being a "Karen". I think that association was borne from the current political climate and viral videos.

It's like how in elementary English class they teach that all words ending in -ly are adverbs, but not all adverbs end in -ly: All "Karens" are entitled assholes, but not all entitled assholes are "Karens".