Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#261

Post by aerosmile »

You will learn a lot about Margaret Mitchell's firing by simply reading this piece she shared publicly on Twitter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO...

A few punchlines:

"Every moment where Jeff Dean and Megan Kacholia do not take responsibility for their actions is another moment where the company as a whole stands by silently as if to intentionally send the horrifying message that Dr. Gebru deserves to be treated this way."

"Dr. Gebru refused to subjugate herself to a system requiring her to belittle her integrity as a researcher and degrade herself below her fellow researchers. Within the next year, let those of us in positions of privilege and power come to terms with the discomfort of being part of an unjust system that devalued one of the world’s leading scientists, and keep something like this from ever happening again."

In short, she was getting paid handsomely while calling out her bosses by name and taking them through the dirt. I have nothing but respect for people willing to fall on their sword for the sake of making the world a better place. But if she thought even for a second that she could possibly be a martyr and also keep her job, she's delusional. I have a hard time aligning myself with people who are fighting for the right cause, but have completely lost their touch with reality.

Perhaps she expected to get fired and knew that moving the files was only going to accelerate the inevitable? In that case, she deserved to be celebrated. But if she thought that she was untouchable, and in addition to being a major PITA for her employer also ended up so easily getting caught red-handed for a fireable offense - then I start questioning her judgement and have to wonder if her arguments against Google are equally skewed.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#262

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

crawfordcomeaux wrote: post #229
leetcrew wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's clearly a strawman interpretation of my comment. > why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? by all means, a healthy company should encourage internal critiques. but if you're going to take that criticism public, you can't expect to also collect a paycheck at the same time. do you make a habit of paying people to work against your interests?

I'm seeking to normalize community accountability practices that are pretty core to many indigenous cultures, including my Irish ancestors. So, yeah...I'll pay for that in every organization I get involved with from here on out. Just cause it's not normalized doesn't mean it isn't useful. The reason to do it is for the sake of actual accountability, as strictly internal accountability is nonsense. This is the busines…

But how can community accountability practices work in an organization like Google, which hires from many different communities? It seems like it inevitably produces loud, angry, unresolvable conflict whenever your community and my community don't agree on a decision.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#263

Post by sjg007 »

It seems AI ethics are on the decline. But in 10-20 years weapons of math destruction which includes AI will be the subject of Congressional and Senate hearings. I would go into public policy in the government/think tank, maybe with an academic gig as well. The Ethics on the medical and criminal justice side seem more pressing than search itself.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#264

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

cwhiz wrote: post #177
buildbot wrote: post #131

It’s a really common refrain here that if you are employee critical of your employer you should expect to get fired… Well perhaps, but you’d think that specifically someone in AI ethics needs to be empowered to speak up against both internal external issues. Or did google just want an research ethics hit team against other companies technologies? Makes me wonder if project zero is really trying as hard as possible wi…

It’s not like she’s an ombudsman for Google. If she has concerns she should voice those concerns internally. If she doesn’t feel that her concerns are being taken seriously, she should quit. On the way out the door, she should tell her story. It’s honestly just basic professionalism. Don’t publicly trash your employer.

I'm curious how you think someone who is a professional ethicist is supposed to do their job without being allowed to comment on ethics.

It's not a cog-in-a-machine profession. Having critical opinions is what the job is about.

It's literally stupid for a corporation to employ an ethicist and then somehow be outraged and appalled when they have their ethics questioned and challenged.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#265

Post by katbyte »

ggm wrote: post #250
jimbokun wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unpacked deep seated entrenched breach of social norms" What does this mean in English?

Unpacked, uncovered, documented, found. Deep seated, ingrained, established, systematic, breach non aligned, wrong, social societal, norms expectations laws, behaviours, Please. Don't be that person. What did you think it meant? What specifically. Was without meaning. Not what do you disagree with: to even pose the question, you have to be literate and capable of reading. At this point your question is actually a sta…

Someone asked you a question and you belittled them assuming worst intent. Please don't be THAT person. For one not everyone speaks english as a first language, two while i _think_ i understand what your getting at you picked a very obtuse way to phrase it and even i'm uncertain if i understand, three when speaking to a diverse audience from around the globe who probably are not aware of the language used when speaking about diversity you should default to simple clear explanations and language, not packing it all up into a dense phrase like that.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#266

Post by sillysaurusx »

contemporary343 wrote: post #111

They also seem to have sidelined Samy Bengio (Yoshua's brother) who was the skip-level manager of the team and, as far as I can tell, backed both of them and continued to: https://twitter.com/L_badikho/status/1362892301979312128 As can be seen above, current team members state that Google is running a smear campaign against both of them. We should emphatically not take Google's words at face value here either. All of…

As can be seen above, current team members state that Google is running a smear campaign against both of them. We should emphatically not take Google's words at face value here either.

I don’t get this. Google’s words are that she exfiltrated company documents. She either did or didn’t do this. And is google going to risk making this into a much bigger story by committing libel against a former employee?

Or should AI ethics researchers be empowered to steal corporate documents?

I try to maintain an open mind, but things seem almost straightforward in this case.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#267

Post by exporectomy »

mikece wrote: post #142

They fired another person whose LITERAL job is to help them not be evil. Before long people won't believe it if you tell them Google's initial motto was "Don't Be Evil."

You're implying that nobody with her job should ever be fired for any reason. That's probably not what you were trying to communicate.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#268

Post by konjin »

duckfang wrote: post #99

At the same time, Google unveiled a "Black owned businesses near me" on Google Maps. How has that been received? We need look no further than Twitter: (the Tl;Dr. racists are using this to lower all ratings of these Black owned businesses) https://twitter.com/dmetaxak/status/1362856231212212224 Google recently added a feature allowing users to search for "Black-owned businesses near you". They're advertising it all o…

You would think that (((Larry Page))) and (((Sergey Brin))) would have made a company that appreciates outing minorities is a bad thing. I guess (((they))) don't mind and will stop deplatforming people who merely point out how (((they))) represent over 40% of billionaires despite making up less than 2% of the population.

Or, and hear out this crazy idea, we stop it with the racism from the left and right and treat people according to their circumstances and their character instead of who their grandparents were.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#269

Post by dragonwriter »

cornel_io wrote: post #173
duckfang wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She moved files when she wasn't supposed to. According to Google. Remember, an entity that has a reason and a justification to do what it wants will manufacture whatever evidence it needs to do that. And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to".

If she didn't do it and they don't have good reason to believe she did, then she could and should easily win a large lawsuit against them, since they have publicly accused her of illegal activity. That is a hugely more risky move than just saying that someone underperformed or was let go for other reasons, and knowing how heavily pre-lawyered everything that Google does is, I highly doubt they would publicize somethi…

> If she didn't do it and they don't have good reason to believe she did, then she could and should easily win a large lawsuit against them, since they have publicly accused her of illegal activity.

Despite the popular refrain of “truth is an absolute defense” in the context of defamation law, in US law falsity is an element of the tort, which means that the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie case that the accusation was false by at least some evidence, the defendant doesn't bear the initial burden of showing that it is true or reasonably believed.

Also, there is a very good chance, since Mitchell was publicly involved in the controversy over Google's firing of Timnit Gebru before Google made the accusation, that Mitchell would be found to be a public figure within the context of Google's alleged defamation, which would heighten the requirement from falsity plus harm to proving actual malice.

Also, if Google is lying, they almost certainly also spent over a month building a constructed evidence trail and doctoring records to support the lie between the very public lockout and the actual firing.

So, no, winning a defamation case wouldn't be easy, wouldn't be quick, and wouldn't fail to be extremely expensive in litigation costs.

Plus, every step Google takes on this is just resulting in more of the remaining people in the affected area of the company going public with problems, and it’s not like Mitchell seems to be hurting for alternative employment so as likely the only value of winning the lawsuit would be a PR poke in Google's eye that they are getting on their own anyway...why bother?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#270

Post by cambalache »

ineedasername wrote: post #236
throwawayhaxx99 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody intelligent ever thought it was sincere

I'm probably not intelligent then. In the early 00's, I did think Google mostly believed in its mission to organize and act as a gateway for the world's information.

You were naive, not dumb, usual thing with young people
Post reply on HN