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

421–430 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#421

Post by JamesBarney »

wpietri wrote: post #377
D13Fd wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interrogating corporate behavior and publicly embarrassing the corporation are two totally different things. You can employ someone and have them develop and even publicly espouse ethics principles, while also instructing them to keep their criticism of corporate behavior confidential to the corporation. This is super common in other professions sometimes charged with enforcing ethical and legal corporate behavior, i…

I suppose that depends on whether you think an "Ethical AI" group's job is as window dressing or to actually make an ethical impact. If the former, then they probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place; PR people are cheaper and more tractable. If the latter, then there's only so long you can ask good people to stay quiet. Enabling ethical failure is also an ethical failure. Your analogies don't really work, I'…

> I suppose that depends on whether you think an "Ethical AI" group's job is as window dressing or to actually make an ethical impact.

1. You can make an ethical impact without applying external pressure. Usually through internal channels. That is their expectations when they hire you.

2. Do you really think "apply external pressure via bad publicity on companynwhen necessary leaking internal documents" was in their job responsibilities?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#422

Post by KODeKarnage »

sn41 wrote: post #404
spicyramen wrote: post #390

Good riddance, work is work, political agendas outside the office space please.

The mandate of the department is ethics. Ethics is not agnostic to one's personal convictions, unlike code. People assume that because someone got fired, they "lost". Another viewpoint is that they retained their ethical integrity at great personal cost - doing so is precisely their actual job.

Yes, ethics is agnostic to one's personal convictions when it is your job. Same as how defense lawyers leave their personal sense of justice out of their jobs. Same as how sports referees don't let their childhood fandom of a particular team affect their calls. Same as how actors will be physically intimate with people the opposite of the sexual preference.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#423

Post by notsureaboutpg »

bryan0 wrote: post #419
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

“Cut and dry”? Given how google fired a previous AI ethicist in an entirely misleading way (“We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google”), it would be naive to take google at their word here.

Of all the things to argue about how that incident went down, this is the worst.

She sent an email with a list of demands saying if they weren't met, she'd work on an exit date with the company.

The company couldn't meet those demands. By her own words she would be exiting the company, they worked out that exit date with her in that email: right now

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#424

Post by ALittleLight »

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…

Is she really calling Dr. Gebru one of the world's leading scientists or am I misreading something?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#425

Post by notsureaboutpg »

monocasa wrote: post #391
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.

Since she's an at will worker, it'll be difficult to prove she was fired illegally

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#426

Post by pseudalopex »

HunterWare wrote: post #373
pseudalopex wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn’t that “actually” exfiltrating company documents? Not Google, but I don’t remember any of my NDAs mentioning that I couldn’t share confidential/privileged/company information unless I really wanted to with my lawyer...

Laws override NDAs. Legal counsel is a common exception. Different jurisdictions have different specific rules.

Your NDAs probably don't say you can cooperate with law enforcement investigations either. But it's very unlikely a court would say you can't.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#427

Post by peteridah »

bryan0 wrote: post #419
Crash0v3rid3 wrote: post #387

“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…

“Cut and dry”? Given how google fired a previous AI ethicist in an entirely misleading way (“We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google”), it would be naive to take google at their word here.

naive is an understatement

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#428

Post by monocasa »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #425
monocasa wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rumor going around is that she thought she was going to be retaliated against, and the documents were her backing up some of her emails in case she was fired illegally to discuss with her lawyer.

Since she's an at will worker, it'll be difficult to prove she was fired illegally

All the more reason for her to have a copy of her emails.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#429

Post by pseudalopex »

trhway wrote: post #348
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…

>The firing of Dr. Timnit Gebru is not okay, and the way it was done is not okay. if i remember correctly she made an ultimatum and threatened to resign, and her resignation was accepted. That doesn't look like firing until we call "firing" any resignation when one disagrees with the employer. To me that intentionally looking sleight of hands with firing/resignation in the Mitchell's doc already undermines trust to w…

Firing someone who gave notice is still firing in California.[1] And Gebru didn't even give notice. She proposed discussing a resignation date.

[1] https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#430

Post by 5600k »

belltaco wrote: post #409
crazygringo wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so vague it's hard to draw any conclusion without specifics. "Exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents" could be nefariously downloading proprietary research for personal gain... or innocently downloading a Slides presentation to your personal phone as a PDF in preparation for a client meeting in case it's impossible to connect to their Wi-Fi. Or saving e-mail communications with your manager in…

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that.

This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense.

I’m kidding of course... or am I?

Post reply on HN