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

#391

Post by igorkraw » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

mpweiher wrote: post #326

igorkraw wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did she make demand coupled with threats? In her own words, she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication. This would very much fly in Germany. Her other email to the public list telling people to stop doing what they are doing might not, but then in Germany you'd have the Betriebsrat and the union stepping in and…

Q: >Where did she make demand coupled with threats? A: >she announced that she'd like to discuss an end date for her employment [editor: threat] if she wouldn't be given the chance to fix the paper up for publication [editor: demand]. "I you don't do as I want, I will leave." "Fine, you can leave". I can't imagine any company that would, or could, react in any other way in this situation. The Betriebsrat would have a…

That isn't a threat, that is announcing her terms. You can think they are in their own right to taker her up on it, but its not a threat.

Also, as far as I know for a "einseitige Freistellung" (one sided decision to no longer want her to work there) Google would have to show that she destroyed the relationship of trust with Google, by e.g. criminal acts or maybe using her position as a manager to undermine the companies overall direction, e.g. by her going to the public mailing list afterwards.

Announcing that she wants to leave if this can't be resolved would NOT qualify as this.

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

#392

Post by pontus » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:18 PM UTC

GVIrish wrote: post #346

pontus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think if people were really trying to improve their companies from within that's a great idea. I don't think that's what's happening here though. I like to pose the following thought experiment to people who like driving fancy cars: if your car looked like an old honda civic from the outside but had all the bells and whistles and looked stunning from the inside, would you still want it? The point of the experi…

I could be wrong but I would think that most people would prefer being able to quietly lobby for improvement at their company rather than going public and putting their job and career on the line. There are certainly rabble rousers out there whose first instinct is always to draw public attention to themselves but it doesn't seem like that's the case here.

Yes, I agree. I just suspect that the people involved here are not like that. If what they really wanted was to improve things at Google, they would not be asking for her to be rehired and promoted. There is literally zero chance that will happen and surely they know this.

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

#393

Post by whoooooo123 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

SyzygistSix wrote: post #331

free_rms wrote: post #86

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…

Was she fired over the paper? Or was she let go because she, with a position as a manager, told other people at Google not to participate in the DEI program because it was useless?

I think a third explanation is more likely: management already had reasons to want to get rid of her and her 'do as I say or I quit!' email provided a convenient excuse to do so.

From the type of things people are saying on r/machinelearning about what she was like to work with, it's not hard to imagine what those reasons might have been.

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

#394

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

pron wrote: post #360

mpweiher wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [..] is a construct It is the way companies are currently constructed, pretty much everywhere. Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. Once again, if you want to agitate against the company, you are free to do this. Just don't expect the company to employe you. > But th…

> Even when you have strong employee representation, in which case that influence is via the employee representatives on the board, not via employees just doing whatever the hell they want. But then you have a recourse that might not be available where this is not the case. Even in your telling of it, we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want, and I see no…

> we have a company that does whatever the hell it wants and employees doing whatever the hell they want,

False equivalence. The company is employing (and paying) the employee, not the other way around. This is not a symmetric relationship. This is the thing you seem to have a hard time with.

And no, the company can't do whatever the hell they want either, they are bound by the contract and the appropriate laws. Which at least one of my employers found out to their detriment (they tried to do something illegal and unethical to me and I didn't let them. Lawyers got involved, it ended very nicely for me)

However, had I done what these Googlers have done, I wouldn't have stood a chance, and my lawyer would have just thrown up his hands and exclaimed "you did WHAT??!?"

> any action you please, including one that risks termination.

Absolutely. But if you risk termination, don't be surprised (and cry foul) if you are terminated.

This really isn't that hard.

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

#395

Post by whoooooo123 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #206

uh_uh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Since when do people use "gaslighting" this way? She and colleagues seem to use it left and right on Twitter regarding all kinds of behaviors. I thought it had a quite specific meaning in the context of narcissist abusers intentionally making their victims doubt their own sanity.

"gaslighting" does have the specific meaning you describe, or at least it used to, but these days it's mostly just used to mean "saying something I disagree with." It seems to come from a special kind of narcissism in which people are so devoutly convinced of their own moral rectitude that they can't believe anyone might disagree with them in good faith. They're so cocooned in their bubble that they can't process anything resembling a contradictory opinion; it sends them into emotional haywire and their only response is to cry victim.

When I hear someone talking about "gaslighting" it significantly lowers my inclination to take them seriously.

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

#396

Post by whoooooo123 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #369

ergocoder wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

I've been following this story quite closely and afaik I know the email Gebru sent that included her 'do this or I quit' ultimatum hasn't beenade public. The email you link to is an an earlier email that, like you say, was sent to a wide group of people within the company

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

#397

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:41 PM UTC

aabhay wrote: post #270

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 -…

> Ethics is now inside the corp. fence so it has to be heard. Do you believe this is a viable trend? This debacle seems to point to the death of 'Ethics research' inside of corporations. What do companies stand to gain from hiring ethics researchers who are a liability to the shareholders? My guess is that the model will go back to using CSR budget to invest in 'social good' non-profits and think tanks that stay at a…

[deleted]

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

#398

Post by whoooooo123 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #228

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.

> toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause Motte and Bailey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

This is another good article on the M&B fallacy for those who are interested: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

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

#399

Post by red75prime » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:44 PM UTC

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…

OK. Data for well defined groups here: https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/popstruct.pdf

Advice to not interpret any genetic data in a divisive manner here: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Golden-Rice/Yudell-Taking-Race-...

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

#400

Post by pseudalopex » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 10:56 PM UTC

crusso wrote: post #164

tolbish wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google let her go early claiming her actions were "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". That is the language used when firing someone for their behavior.

I agree that it could be viewed as firing language, but only if we had no context. However, we have context. We know that an ultimatum including a resignation threat was given. Accepting that resignation and making the termination of their employment relationship immediate with some extra "Yeah, this is for the best" language doesn't mean that she was fired. If you only want to consider the limited context of ignorin…

You can't choose the date of an employee's resignation.[1]

[1] https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf