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

281–290 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#281

Post by kamranjon »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #224
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 a really common refrain here that if you are employee critical of your employer you should expect to get fired I don't know how common that refrain is but I have one a little less controversial: if you use corporate email to exfiltrate confidential documents or coworkers' personal information, you really should expect to get fired.

I don't think that's exactly what happened. From my understanding she was backing up emails that served as evidence to support the claim that Google had treated Timnit Gebru unfairly during their termination. Not sure where that legally falls but I wouldn't exactly paint it in the light you did here.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#282

Post by pwinnski »

leetcrew wrote: post #171
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…

why would a company pay someone to publicly criticize them? in the case of google, there's already plenty of people willing to do that for free.

It is literally the job of an AI ethicist to highlight ethical issues, so if they're publicly criticizing you, then you're likely doing something unethical.

If your team of ethicists has repeatedly highlighted issues and you continue to not address them, what should they do then? In the case of a company whose self-image is of openness and directness and benevolence, it seems reasonable that publicly highlight the lack of change is within reason.

If they cared less, they'd just shut up, but employees seem to have a higher opinion of Google than Google does of them.

Firing them in the middle of that suggests an unwillingness to deal with the previous issues, doubling down on unethical behavior.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#283

Post by xboxnolifes »

aliyfarah wrote: post #277
aerosmile wrote: post #261

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. Geb…

Deleted

I'm confused, you seem to say that the parent's opinion is delusional, but then you share their same opinion in the next sentence.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#284

Post by spoonjim »

nodesocket wrote: post #241
strangeloops85 wrote: post #139

Somehow Microsoft Research manages to be a much more open place than Google and has researchers publish critical pieces all the time. It's ultimately a bit sad that Google, the company started by two PhD students, is incapable of creating a similar culture to MSR.

This behavior starts all the way at the top with Sergey. See Google's leaked internal all-hands[1] after Trump won basically calling for the end of the world without any regard to employees who may be fiscally conservative or Trump supporters. Google is by far the worse of the big bay area tech companies in terms of stifling speech, equality of outcome policies, and being an echo chamber. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/201…

Google doesn’t have any obligation to its Trump supporters. It is an entity outside of its employees and its decisions issue from the CEO and Board. If you don’t like their decisions don’t work there.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#285

Post by ggm »

katbyte wrote: post #252
ggm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its not disingenuous. It has to be thought about, sure. I think by the time you're archiving company secrets outside the firewall you mentally left some time ago. What led you there? Is that maybe the interest for me? I don't think she wound up there for entirely base reasons, maybe that's what I'm thinking. Most strict legal compliance answers aren't "wrong" but boy, they feel limited. Hard to change things when…

As a manager someone can disagree with me all they want, whatever i honestly don't care speak your mind. But the moment they start breaking company rules it starts to get into a problematic space, depending on the rule it can mean their judgement can't be trusted anymore and they will have to be let go. Some company rules are to meet legal requirements, and breaking legally required rules is an entirely different bal…

As a manager you have structural obligations it would be impossible to ignore. I believe Mitchell will fail to argue illegal termination in law. I am sure google will have a mixed outcome here, some aspects (reinforcement of hr expectations and contract compliance obligations will be net beneficial for everyone) and some (confirmation of how strongly there is a gap between Google's posture, post "dont be evil" and the actual reality) less so.

I've met and worked with a small, couple of handfuls of google people, men and women, all amazingly skilled. Meredith Whittaker was one of them and I think her termination was unnecessary. I do think less of Google as a consequence.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#286

Post by pseudalopex »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #266
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…

Google didn't say where she sent the documents. Forwarding emails to her own employment lawyers would be exfiltrating company documents technically.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#287

Post by true_religion »

aliyfarah wrote: post #277
aerosmile wrote: post #261

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. Geb…

Deleted

Sitting silently is the opposite of falling on your sword. By complaining and getting fired, she became a martyr.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#289

Post by dragonwriter »

aerosmile wrote: post #261

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. Geb…

> But if she thought that she was untouchable,

She was complaining about her peer and co-lead being fired by top management, going around their shared immediate management, dishonestly and in retaliation for internally highlighting problems.

I think the one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that she didn't see herself as invulnerable.

> so easily getting caught red-handed

“so easily caught red-handed”? It took 5 weeks from when she was locked out over a supposed automated alarm of a possible unauthorized activity. for her to be fired.

If (and no one not directly involved has any way of knowing this) she was actually “caught red handed” it doesn't seem to have been very easy.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#290

Post by thirtyseven »

aerosmile wrote: post #261

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. Geb…

Why hire an Ethics team if you won't let them interrogate unethical behavior?
Post reply on HN