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

651–660 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#651

Post by randycupertino »

totalZero wrote: post #551
marricks wrote: post #401

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?

So, I work in medical research and was headhunted by (but turned down) Juul to work on sponsored trials and research related to smoking cessation and health improvement in patients who are switching to pods.

Per the article, "Google has recruited top scientists with promises of research freedom, but the limits are tested as researchers increasingly write about the negative effects of technology and offer unflattering perspectives on their employer's products."

Like... these AI researchers are delusional if they think their work is truly unbiased and that they can work at a company and get paid by that company to produce unbiased research. If I took that job at Juul even though it was ridiculous $$ I would have known what I was getting into and who was buttering my bread.

It's either sell your soul and move to industry and enjoy the industry $$ or stay in academia and enjoy your moral purity and being able to look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day but not being able to buy a house in the Bay Area.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#652

Post by vkou »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #561
anonygler wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.

Google, by virtue of its sheer influence in the industry, is primarily responsible for the activist-driven grief that has shat itself all over the tech industry in recent years. So fuck them. Watching the toxic crops they've planted and tended to go for their own creator's throats is nothing short of delightful.

You make it sound like politics was invented at Google... As opposed to being something that people have engaged in, since before recorded history[1], during times of upheaval of social and cultural norms.

[1] Certainly, since before 1998. The recent past was not some apolitical paradise.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#653

Post by valdiorn »

sangnoir wrote: post #379
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…

> 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.

Her call outs had nothing to do with AI ethics, though, and centered almost entirely on alleged perceived sexism, racism, shady HR practices with a sprinkle of political correctness on top, with regards to her colleagues firing.

She started slandering her employer on Twitter in front of the whole world, when that conversation should CLEARLY have been private, and she got fired for it.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#654

Post by _y5hn »

systemvoltage wrote: post #485
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…

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…

Agreed.

We as human beings need to choose not to be manipulated through these very effective communications means.

Outrage is just not good enough without constructiveness.

Villifying everyone who disagrees with your "clan", is not fair argument.

That "one's own side wins" through these means.. nothing good will come out of it!

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#655

Post by mellosouls »

pseudalopex wrote: post #217
mellosouls wrote: post #154

"Google fires another AI ethics leader." Somewhat loaded title, as it implies a previous one was fired, which was not at all established as the case.

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

She proposed discussing a resignation date.

She threatened them with resignation; they called her bluff and accepted.

Like I said - loaded title.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#656

Post by valdiorn »

prepend wrote: post #445
geofft wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 submis…

She's also not publishing this as just herself, she works for Google and is publishing on their behalf. Of course they have veto power over what she publishes. You take issue with that; quit. Which, I believe she did (she didn't get fired AFAIK)

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#657

Post by _y5hn »

randycupertino wrote: post #651
totalZero wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So, I work in medical research and was headhunted by (but turned down) Juul to work on sponsored trials and research related to smoking cessation and health improvement in patients who are switching to pods. Per the article, "Google has recruited top scientists with promises of research freedom, but the limits are tested as researchers increasingly write about the negative effects of technology and offer unflattering…

I don't know. On the surface of it, it seems a very good opportunity to work in an area with lots of potential, but which also need lots of regulations. You get to ensure decisions by machines will improve lives and not be unintentionally biased by any means. It's also good money, knowledgeable peers and pretty wide net for R&D. Good times!

It's just a bitch that for-profit company lobby for no regulations, and fire people who speak up to power.

However, we all know company culture do not tolerate speaking up to power. So these people also went about it the wrong way, and going public too soon over something that was just theoretical.

What you need to do is gather evidence, and escalate as security violations internally. Use the proper channels. This is harder work than crying wolf, obviously.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#658

Post by Zuider »

WalterBright wrote: post #636
ajb wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So,if you are being abused by your boss via email, you can't give the evidence to a lawyer, but first have to apply for a court order without showing any evidence in order to get the evidence? I think this is unlikely to be the law, and if it is, it shouldn't be.

IANAL, but that's what "discovery" is for.

But without solid evidence of some sort, one cannot establish that there is a case fit to be heard in court, and so there will be no discovery. It is a bootstrapping problem.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#659

Post by throwawaygooge »

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 language that Google use is consistent with simply bcc-ing outgoing e-mails to a personal account and a lawyer's account.

That is exactly what I have done and would do whenever my job has been threatened - so that I have access to relevant written evidence after my e-mail is switched off.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#660

Post by monocasa »

knorker wrote: post #649
monocasa wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it comes out that they mean discussing specific emails with an employment lawyer, then yeah, kind of.

It's a theory. If she doesn't sue then we can assume that's not what happened. If she does sue, then it'll probably still be a secret settlement, so we won't know. :-( Personally i don't believe this theory. Because it's so easy to counter what google said, then, and google's lawyers are not that stupid.

Google has already publicly misrepresented facts in this saga.
Post reply on HN