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

511–520 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#511

Post by pbreit »

bradlys wrote: post #498
pbreit wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder how smart, driven people aren't able (willing?) to cope with these situations.

Money isn’t usually enough. I walked away from a job paying more than $1m/yr (to be clear - I am not rich or financially independent, the stock is still illiquid atm and I live in a 400sqft in-law unit). You need satisfaction overall with your environment. I kept asking myself how much a year of my life was worth and it turns out - unless it’s fucking insane money ($10mil+ liquid) then I can’t suffer through somethin…

I should have explained better: why are smart people so bad at navigating the workplace? Gebru’s email was insane.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#512

Post by DoreenMichele »

My general impression of this entire thing, starting with Gebru being fired, is that the department should have never been named "ethical AI" anything.

It's research into social stuff. How AI interacts with things like faces and how that gets biased by a lot of social issues, like racism and existing class stratification related to race (among other things).

These are things that can have "ethical" implications but when you start talking about "Ethical AI," you inadvertently convince people "We are the Good Guys. We will treat everyone in some extremely above board fashion. Our little department is going to single-handedly right all historical racial and gendered wrongs ever in the history of the universe and all the baggage all of society is living with as a consequence."

Good luck with that. It isn't happening and the implied contract there suggesting it will is just going to piss people off and give them unrealistic expectations.

No, I am absolutely not justifying shitty behavior of any sort, not in this case nor in the general case. Don't come at me with ridiculous accusations of that sort.

It's hard to make progress. It's actively counterproductive to inadvertently set expectations that this one department will meet some crazy strict set of ethics at all times every minute of every day in contrast with the entire rest of the world where we duke it out for small gains on a regular basis.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#513

Post by JamesBarney »

monocasa wrote: post #497
JamesBarney wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements. But right now what we have is Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru Meg: no comment And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and…

> Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements. They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. > ... And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data? No I'm saying there's probably more…

> They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation.

Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The general rule has been "Would a reasonable person who read this letter conclude they had the intention of quitting if their conditions were not met?". And Gebru's letter really made it seem like she has every intention of quitting if her conditions were not met.

So this is definitely not lying in an easily verifiable way.

> No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing).

This is probably true, I'm not saying we know the whole story. I'm arguing that it is highly probably(>90%) she exfiltrated data from Google.

> The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.

This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#514

Post by choppaface »

JamesBarney wrote: post #480
pseudalopex wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But did she release documents to the press? Exfiltration of confidential documents could mean just forwarding emails to herself or an employment lawyer.

I don't know if she's released them to the press. What's your best guess for why she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of e-mails related to Gebru? Mine is it involves releasing them to the press.

Dr Gebru was talking with a lawyer before they fired her. Mitchell was likely contributing to the case because she herself was experiencing retaliation from Google. At this point it doesn’t really matter if it goes to the press or ends up in a complaint—- Google’s retaliation here is illegal. You can’t reproach an employee for simply talking to a lawyer and that’s exactly what Jeff Dean and co did.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#515

Post by cornel_io »

marricks wrote: post #453
jeffbee wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.

Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly. They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers. Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?

Accusing a fired employee in such a public way of stealing documents could be argued to be blowing up her career forever. That's maybr 20 years at let's say 600k/year, ballpark what someone her level was making there (maybe even low, sheay have been L7+). That's a chunky enough defamation suit that it shouldn't be hard to find a really solid firm to defend you on spec, and it'd be worth enough that it would be pretty crazy not to pursue.

So I guess we'll find out, when she either files this suit or does not. But if you were a lawyer at Google, would you have let this statement go out without quadruple demanding to see the proof?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#516

Post by bitcharmer »

mtgx wrote: post #98
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they'll just conclude the whole thing was a waste and only caused negative publicity and hard feelings and have legal and PR and relevant stakeholders from any given project manage ethics going forward like normal BigCos do.

Let's be real. The whole idea of this "Ethics Board" was only ever done for PR. Period. Google never actually intended to follow through with any of their recommendations if it meant going against its financial interests.

No, they just hired the wrong people. They employed political activists instead of real professionals which was initially great for PR. Not the best long term decision they've made.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#517

Post by pseudalopex »

skinkestek wrote: post #503
pseudalopex wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you celebrate any less happily if the holiday party had kosher food?

Not a jew but an "observant christian": I'd in fact in many cases be less happy if they took away things from my colleagues to please me. I don't eat blood or strangled meat but don't mess up other people's celebrations and blame it on me. As long as I'm not forced to be part of it just give me something else that I like and I'm happy.

Having kosher food doesn't mean we can't have ham. People eat other things at Christmas anyway. And calling it a holiday party doesn't take anything away from anyone.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#518

Post by choppaface »

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…

Jeff Dean is getting paid two orders of magnitude more and yet he let the fire burn for several months before things went critical. Everybody in this story is making too much money, but some way way way more than others.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#519

Post by dragonwriter »

cornel_io wrote: post #499
dragonwriter wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google doesn't need to, and no one needs to assume that Google’s description is accurate, either.

I've said this before, but if it's not accurate then whoever said it publicly should be fired immediately because that is actionable if it's a lie. Google has extremely good lawyers and a PR machine that cares what they say. There's absolutely no way that they are plainly making it up.

If it's not true, it's a high-level multiple-executive strategic decision, probably including the CEO who has apparently been actively involved at least since the response to Gebru’s firing boiled over, not a rogue employee.

Which isn't to say you are wrong that they should be fired, but it's kind of like saying whoever in the US government was involved in inciting in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol should have been fired.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#520

Post by refenestrator »

monocasa wrote: post #500
refenestrator wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovery is a thing. Big companies are more likely to catch these shenanigans, making it automatically a legit term, and also more likely to have retention policies where you can get it later in discovery. You're right about smaller corps.

It's not a big corp vs small corp distinction; it's a question of how important the employees in question at the company are who were in the more powerful position. A large company isn't going to bend over backwards for a seven rungs down middle manager committing the wrongful termination, but when the most influential members of the company are involved all the stops come out. It's just more likely that a small comp…

Do you think this is going to work out for her?
Post reply on HN