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

441–450 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#441

Post by prepend »

solveit wrote: post #397
wpietri wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think the one thing both sides can agree on is that there should be whistleblower protections enshrined in law for people reporting ethics breaches. (I'm not going to try and suggest how it should be implemented, that's legitimately difficult)

No one in this scenario reported an ethics breach right? So how would it apply?

There are whistleblower laws now but they apply to illegal actions.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#442

Post by JamesBarney »

geofft wrote: post #308
Cacti wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole piece of so amazingly self-entitled. > Dr. Gebru refused to subjugate herself to a system Like working at a gigantic publicly traded US corporation? > belittle her integrity as a researcher and degrade herself below her fellow researchers Funny way of phrasing "paper wasn't good enough yet to pass peer review." > let those of us in positions of privilege and power come to terms with the discomfort of being…

> Funny way of phrasing "paper wasn't good enough yet to pass peer review." Peer review happens after it's submitted, in a blinded review process, by other researchers who don't have a conflict of interest - i.e., people who are at other institutions. It does not happen internally by people hand-picked by management. You can disagree about the merits if you want, but it's important that we're on the same page about t…

Gebru was a very bright individual who could have gotten a job in academia, but instead chose to work for Google. Part of that arrangement was Google got discretion on what she could print. They wanted her to change what was printed because they believed the paper was unfairly critical of technologies Google had a stake in.

She disagreed, threatened to resign, wrote an unprofessional email and then Google accepted her resignation.

Where's the scandal?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#443

Post by monocasa »

refenestrator wrote: post #435
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.

She probably should have discussed this plan with her lawyer before exfiltrating the documents.

Who's to say she didn't. Some of the wrongful termination suits I've seen personally lived and died based on if an employee had their own copy of emails. Discovery doesn't always work against an entity that's already behaving illegally.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#444

Post by pseudalopex »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #434
pseudalopex wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You still might need a legal order to obtain the documents.

Or you might not. Different jurisdictions have different rules.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#445

Post by prepend »

geofft wrote: post #308
Cacti wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole piece of so amazingly self-entitled. > Dr. Gebru refused to subjugate herself to a system Like working at a gigantic publicly traded US corporation? > belittle her integrity as a researcher and degrade herself below her fellow researchers Funny way of phrasing "paper wasn't good enough yet to pass peer review." > let those of us in positions of privilege and power come to terms with the discomfort of being…

> Funny way of phrasing "paper wasn't good enough yet to pass peer review." Peer review happens after it's submitted, in a blinded review process, by other researchers who don't have a conflict of interest - i.e., people who are at other institutions. It does not happen internally by people hand-picked by management. You can disagree about the merits if you want, but it's important that we're on the same page about t…

> Peer review happens after it's submitted, in a blinded review process, by other researchers who don't have a conflict of interest - i.e., people who are at other institutions. It does not happen internally by people hand-picked by management.

This is absolutely untrue. Your confusing peer review of journal with peer review prior to submitting to the journal. It’s super common to have papers reviewed prior to submission anywhere, and that review is usually done by peers or even superiors.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#446

Post by johncena33 »

duckfang wrote: post #123
sillysaurusx wrote: post #94

It's pretty important to get this story straight: She moved files when she wasn't supposed to. This seems like a pretty standard firing. People are already claiming on twitter that Google is assaulting ethical AI, and I just don't see it. Google did not immediately comment on those claims. Its statement said of Mitchell: “We confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our secur…

> 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".

> According to Google.

You do understand that if Google is lying, they'd be get sued for libel and potentially millions of dollars in settlement and even more in PR damage.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#447

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #413
sangnoir wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In short, she was getting paid handsomely while calling out her bosses by name and taking them through the dirt I think their job was just that: call out the company (and others) on AI ethics issues - I don't see how it comes as a surprise to you that a person in such a role is also concerned about ethics in general, or the ethics of AI ethics at Google, so to speak.

You think their job responsibilty was to publically shame their employer? (With private internal documents no less)

What private internal documents did she publish?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#448

Post by D13Fd »

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'…

Forcing the company to comply with legal standards is often literally the job of a corporate attorney in an employment or compliance department.

And the primary concern isn't to avoid "going to jail," it's avoiding civil liability (for employment) or regulatory action (for compliance). Offering guidance on ethical behavior helps to avoid both of those issues.

Whistleblower statutes are an enforcement mechanism that provide cover (and sometimes motivation) to report or disclose ethical violations. But they are more of an escape valve for truly extraordinary situations, as opposed to the day-to-day guidance that professionals provide.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#449

Post by s1artibartfast »

davesque wrote: post #368
throwawayhaxx99 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody intelligent ever thought it was sincere

Honestly, I think this attitude makes much more sense in the present era than it did before about ten years ago. There was a time when IMHO you weren't just naive for believing that Google was sincere about its "don't be evil" mantra. The current age really is one of cynicism. Of course, in my mind that's a completely separate question from whether or not Google is being evil in this case. As far as that goes, I hone…

I suspect very few employees actually think that google is evil. The phrase was noteworthy at the time because it was so hyperbolic. It was only now when nuance has been thrown out the window that everything has to be black and white.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#450

Post by monocasa »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #423
bryan0 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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

The State of California is very clear that the sequence you've outlined is a firing. An employee needs to be the sole one setting the last date for it not to be a firing.
Post reply on HN