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

681–690 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#681

Post by twoslide »

crazygringo wrote: post #393
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…

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…

Selective enforcement could be another issue. If this is common practice at the organization, then using it as justification for termination is a false pretense. Possibly still legal but not really ethical.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#682

Post by brown9-2 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #180
buildbot wrote: post #131

It’s a really common refrain here that if you are employee critical of your employer you should expect to get fired… Well perhaps, but you’d think that specifically someone in AI ethics needs to be empowered to speak up against both internal external issues. Or did google just want an research ethics hit team against other companies technologies? Makes me wonder if project zero is really trying as hard as possible wi…

Speak up internally, sure. Externally?

Well that’s what academics and research scientists do - publish research and give talks at conferences.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#684

Post by simonh »

cforrester wrote: post #637
simonh wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of which is acceptable. If she or her lawyers want their own copies of emails outside the company, they can apply to a court.

From both a practical and ethical point of view, I find it more than acceptable to retain copies of email correspondence one is participating in, and to share that correspondence with one's legal representation. The alternative puts too much power in corporate hands.

I can understand maybe showing an email or several perhaps to a lawyer, a court might well consider that reasonable even if it's a technical violation, or just give a warning. It's a matter of proportionality. Breaking a speed limit by a few mph won't get you banned from driving. This is completely different though, it was an automated query trawling and exfiltrating vast quantities of mail threads.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#685

Post by brailsafe »

benlumen wrote: post #74
brailsafe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Above a certain amount, unless you're a sociopath, selling your soul just makes you depressed.

I mean, I assume that most people doing these high-end jobs actually want to be doing them. If they've sold their souls, that's a seperate issue.

I think I was not referring to arbitrary high paying jobs, but specifically the highest paying and possibly highest reach jobs, like ethical AI at the biggest tech company. The sociopath term may have seemed a little dramatic, but really, if you feel like there's more than just petty politics problems and you don't feel conflicted, that's concerning.

Also was flippantly disregarding the tech as sufficiently compelling to ignore what you feel is really damaging if such a thing exists. I personally would have a high bar for technical work being sufficiently interesting, and a medium bar for keeping quiet.

The immediate example I think of is that I'd have a hard time accepting FB money to write JS there, because of ultimately how they make money maybe or not respecting the ceo. Granted, I have no idea what it's like on the inside.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#686

Post by adenozine »

Clewza313 wrote: post #527
tantalor wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she didn't see herself as invulnerable Yet: Dr. Gebru and I had just been promoted to “Staff” Research Scientist, which is meaningful in the world of STEM, with the sort of honor associated with becoming tenured. We had thought it meant a certain amount of job security.

Staff at Google is L6, which is a mid-high rank at best. For comparison, fresh grads are typically L3, while a Fellow is L12.

What are these L levels? Is there a resource to understand them?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#687

Post by Jon_Lowtek »

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?

The "artificial intelligence" we should worry about at the moment are not computers, but corporations. And i believe they should sink money/energy into ethics the same way humans sink food/energy into ethics and i truly hope their environment does not favor the most ruthless and unethical one, in the same way i hope ours does not. Now as a species we are working on computer AI and, unsurprisingly, i would say those should use resources on ethics, too.

But i agree that many of the people who have such job titles, and make it into the media, seem to be wingnuts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#688

Post by pseudalopex »

mellosouls wrote: post #655
pseudalopex wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They rejected her proposal to discuss an end date and imposed immediate termination. You can argue it was justified. You can argue California law should be different. But the title states a legal fact.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#689

Post by Udik »

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 think the comparison holds. Juul's business is that of selling nicotine pods, as many as possible- there doesn't seem to be much wiggle space there. Google's business is not that of selling AIs, much less that of selling unethical AIs. It seems there's plenty of space for constructive research on how to improve, or at least monitor, Google products for better results.

It seems that the issue here is that Google didn't hire dispassionate ethical researchers able to deal with a wide range of ethical issues; instead it hired activists with a precise, narrow agenda. People who think that the world itself is biased (including the company they work for and their own management) and that Google should change its products to enact a change upon it. Once these activists have found themselves cuddled the most powerful company in the world and showered with praise and money, it seems their egos just started inflating until they burst.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#690

Post by pseudalopex »

refurb wrote: post #596
pseudalopex wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But it was still an ultimatum. Acting like she was fired out of the blue is dishonest. She threatened to resign unless things changed so good fired her.

Calling it firing isn't acting like it was out of the blue.
Post reply on HN