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

361–370 of 460 posts

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

#361

Post by red75prime »

bonoboTP wrote: post #230
red75prime wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't mean that a person cannot genetically belong to a well defined group with little admixture.

The question is how geographically localized that "well defined group" is. Are Eritreans in the same well defined group as Ghanans or as Lebanese? Are Cypriots the same as Lebanese or Italians? Are Italians in the same well defined group as Greeks or as Germans? Are Germans like Slovaks or like the Sami? You can surely say that the overlap in a Ghanan and a Sami person's ancestry is quite small regarding recent mille…

I've studied a wider range of literature, and I suggest to not discuss this question one way or another. Let's leave genetics to geneticists.

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

#362

Post by GVIrish »

ergocoder wrote: post #351
GVIrish wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing. It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking. When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date. > If someone says, do this or I'll jump This is not a great analogy. I actually would go as far as saying people who use this analogy have malicious…

> It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking. When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date.

People choose their end date all the time. That's just standard. Sometimes the company moves a date up, sometimes the two parties negotiate a different date for some reason, sometimes people are fired.

If it's an at-will employment state, both parties can choose whatever date they like. But if the employer terminates employment early, that's generally a firing. If an employment does so, we call it quitting.

> Let's look at a small example. Say I'll commit suicide if you go and see your kids today. Now it's only one day, and you (as a decent person) will probably skip seeing your kids for one day to save one life.

> Now if I say I'll quit my job if you go to see your kids today. You would probably say "Then, please quit."

Use whatever analogy works for you, ultimately the point is the same. Someone can threaten to do something, but if you do it for them it's different than if they do it themselves.

If someone says "I'll quit" and the company disables their badge and security escorts them out, they've been fired.

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

#363

Post by pron »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #333
pron wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and maybe they misjudged their power and overplayed their hand, but why is it that the law is the only guidance for management while employees are held up to a higher standard? If management can do anything as long as it's legal, so can the workers.

A corporation is not obligated to keep you employed nor should they be outside of a legal contract. I’d prefer it stays that way because I don’t want to be compelled to work for anyone or have them be compelled to hire me. They’re two sides of the same coin.

They are two sides of the same coin, but the law in some countries recognises that the employer has more power, and so favours the worker and makes it harder for the employer to terminate an employee without making it harder for the employee to quit.

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

#364

Post by pron »

coward8675309 wrote: post #330
pron wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I don't know enough details or background about this situation to debate over its nuances. I'm just criticising the views I see expressed here, that are bizarre even from a capitalistic perspective, that a corporation may do anything legal and will be judged by the market, while employees doing the same -- whether it's smart or not -- is crossing some line.

I don't know what general principles people are arguing for here, but the facts at the heart of TFA relate to someone laying down an ultimatum to an employer — "do these things or I'm going to quit" — and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye." That accepted conditional resignation (as someone mellifluously put it in an earlier HN discussion) is being interpreted by some as a firing. Having read the origi…

> and the employer replying "sorry to hear that buh bye."

... and then other employees raising a stink, perhaps in the hope, misguided or not, that the company will reverse its decision or change its behaviour to help its PR. The employer can use whatever power they think they have, but so can the employees. It's one thing to say that what the employees did wasn't a wise way to achieve their goal, but it's a whole other thing to say that what they did is wrong.

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

#365

Post by frongpik »

throwaway201606 wrote: post #352
frongpik wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that these activists constitute a tribe. They are really just spoiled kids who used to have power over their parents. Now they enter the big world and keep doing what they've been always doing: throwing tantrums and yelling silly demands at their parents. But other adults don't care, so the spoiled kids get ignored and then shown the door. Now they are stunned: they don't understand why the world doesn't w…

That idea that activists (in corp) don't constitute a tribe in an interesting opinion - one that I actually sorta-subscribe to. I frame it in terms of acculturation vs. assimilation. You have to decide what your corp. policy is and make it explicit, something that I think did not happen here. The conversation is something like 'if you join us, you do your thing BUT our way" or "if you join us, you do your thing YOUR…

The corporate's plan is simple: whitewash their ML business and score some diversity points (they're a federal contractor which imposes certain obligations). They tried to do both things at the same time. Whether the spoiled kids realise this is irrelevant: they don't become a tribe just because they are brought into the same kindergarten. Google will try to reshuffle the deck and if that doesn't work, they'll split the ethics and diversity components into separate orgs, where ethics will be given to more mature and competent people (perhaps unethical at the he same time - this is another dunder mifflin corp after all).

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

#366

Post by pron »

g42gregory wrote: post #309
pron wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But how can the virus stay alive while killing its hosts so vehemently? Comparing a company to a host and the employees that create its wealth to a virus is illogical even for the most ardent capitalist. Isn't the capitalist idea that everyone, be it the employer or the worker, do their utmost to maximise their market value and use it to the best of their ability to their own advantage? Even the ancien régime reali…

The way I understand his point is that he is comparing the woke culture to the virus, not the workers themselves. I am guessing that there are plenty of Google’s employees who are not a part of the woke movement. He would not be addressing them in his point, I think.

I would expect a company as large as Google to have many employees with varied opinions, and given that leftist and social justice leanings are prevalent among the well-educated, I would expect such views to be overrepresented at Google and so that the contribution to Google's wealth comes in large part from people that commenter sees as a virus. In fact, since Google hired the manager in question, they must have done so believing that her perspective will enrich the company; i.e. they sought to exploit it in some profitable way. That, too, doesn't sound to me at all like a virus.

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

#367

Post by pron »

frongpik wrote: post #339
throwaway201606 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I had more upvotes to give for this comment. It gave me multiple upsights about how to clean up my approach thinking about the issues here: + framing an analogy using technology governance functions - whose functions and values can be clearly quantified and measured by many independently - with a ethical (moral) functions - whose values and results are much more nebulous + drawing a parallel between hackers -…

I disagree that these activists constitute a tribe. They are really just spoiled kids who used to have power over their parents. Now they enter the big world and keep doing what they've been always doing: throwing tantrums and yelling silly demands at their parents. But other adults don't care, so the spoiled kids get ignored and then shown the door. Now they are stunned: they don't understand why the world doesn't w…

But Google's top executives are political activists themselves, spending over $20 million in 2018 on lobbying with demands that aren't any more prima facie silly than those of these employees. The main difference between them is that Google's top executives are far more politically active and with much deeper pockets.

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

#368

Post by uh_uh »

Udik wrote: post #320
uh_uh wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It honestly baffles me. I also expect had I - or any of the people I know - made similar threats, we would be fired on very short notice. The fact that Google just let this past threat slide seems highly unusual to me.

It just makes you wonder how much toxic behaviour did her managers put up with before deciding that enough is enough, and (more or less) firing a prominent, visible, black, female AI ethicist working in the field of gender equality and racial discrimination. They knew perfectly well how damaging it could have been and yet decided they had enough.

Yeah, I guess calling your managers "a bunch of privileged White men" is probably not going to win many friends: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824?s...

I find her totally out of line and disagree with her politics but I have to give her that in some sense she is quite brave. Most people would never consider tweeting out something like this because they'd be afraid of getting fired immediately and also suffering a reputational damage that would make applying for future jobs difficult. But she doesn't seem to be fazed by this.

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

#369

Post by crusso »

ergocoder wrote: post #337
crusso wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the jump/push analogy is too contorted to be meaningful. Employers and employees have a relationship that has processes that have common meanings and names like "resigned" or "fired". There's no accepted relationship if you push someone threatening to jump. You're just an a-hole committing assault and possibly murder. Is there a link to the letter that she sent? That could help to clarify.

There is. You probably can Google for it. The demand is something around exposing the identities of the peers who reviewed and rejected her paper. If Google doesn't give her the identities of those peers, she say she will leave the company. Comparing to suicide is a bit much though. When considering death, everything else becomes secondary, so we can't use that analogy for comparison.

I actually spent a bit of time searching for a letter she sent with an ultimatum to her management. I've seen this referenced multiple places as "the email that got a Google researcher fired": https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

But that doesn't seem right. That looks more like a different type of letter, sent to a wider audience than just Timnit to her manager(s).

I've seen referenced that there was a timeframe for when she was going to quit that she mentioned. I see no such reference in that letter.

Maybe there's a real copy of the letter floating around. My guess is that people pretend that they've seen "the letter" but only read this other one I referenced above.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, though. I have no dog in this fight except to understand the truth of the situation. If you've seen a different letter than shows her ultimatum and time frame, please share.

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

#370

Post by oh_sigh »

istjohn wrote: post #328
oh_sigh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the obvious, honest answer make the most sense? Someone in Google management doesn't want their products acting unethically - merely because it is unethical?

In a world rife with deceptive marketing and advertising, PR spin, greenwashing, lobbying, astroturfing, and backroom deals, taking a corporation's actions or words at face value without considering if there might instead be an ulterior motive rooted in avarice is simply naive.

In a world of lies, deception, half-truths, fabrications, and hypocrisy, it would be simply naive to put any faith into a random internet comment. What could your ulterior motives be for posting this?
Post reply on HN