591–600 of 864 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru. "multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.
"Firing @timnitGebru created a domino effect of trauma for me and the rest of the team, and I believe we are being increasingly punished for that trauma." Wow. These activists are truly living in an alternate reality.
Google and many of the other tech giants have played a big role in creating and indulging these activists - this is chickens coming home to roost.
“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…
Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease. If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for…
“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…
Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease. If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assumption that corporations, not courts, decide legality seems inane to me. The company you worship could commit a crime and then engage in a cover up to destroy all evidence before discovery could occur. The easiest, recent example is Ebay: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/technology/ebay-cockroach...
Sorry, by legal, I meant, "within the terms of your employment agreement."
The law > employee agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but I think it is much more likely... ...but you really have no idea. You’re just speculating, in a way that conforms with how you’d like to interpret these events. Which, to be fair, is what we’re all doing, with basically no information on what actually happened. At this point, it’s all just the he-said-she-said from the Google PR machine. I think in this case, there’s little reason for someone without bias to ac…
Has she given a contradictory version of events?
To be fair, if she were preparing a wrongful termination suit, publicly commenting would be an unforced error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is just arguing semantics. It can both be true that she was the initiator of her departure, and legally it's a firing.
They didn't work "out that exit date with her in that email". They told her she was no longer an employee effective immediately. That is a firing, legally and otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team. I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...
Some of these "AI ethics researchers" seem like wingnuts, and their profession appears to serve more of a PR purpose than a business purpose. What am I missing? Why are they so essential? Are these people the canaries in the coal mine, or do they simply exist because of paranoia and political correctness?