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

711–720 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#711

Post by Aeolun »

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…

> or stay in academia and enjoy your moral purity

I have a very hard time believing you can retain much moral purity after all the publish, publish, publish, grants and will they or won’t they tenure drama. At least the motives of the company hiring you to do research for them are clear.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#712

Post by SuoDuanDao »

solipsism wrote: post #521
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, that looks to me like naivete about the behaviour of the regulatory apparatus. Ultimately, a civilisation runs on both rules and tools, and while we clearly have opposite biases about where the low-hanging fruit are, I think we also both know it's not really true that there are zero improvements to be made in either realm. I'd be happy to share my scepticism about attempts to reform the 'rules' side of the equat…

Wow, this is a good example of sounds-smart nonsense. Deepak Chopra style. > The only time one player can dominate a limited number of niches is when there are few niches to begin with. What?? What are you even saying? It's an entire world filled with niches. There's no sense in which niches are limited. How does it ever make sense to talk about "a limited number of niches"??

>There's no sense in which niches are limited.

If that were true, people would still be buying pet supplies from Pets.com and books from Amazon.com. The fact everyone knows what is meant by 'FAANG' should demonstrate how few actual niches exist in the digital space.

Communication is difficult when worldviews are very different and you seem uninterested in meeting me halfway. I'd be happy to explore this area of dialogue further, but you'd need to agree to stop insulting me.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#713

Post by SuoDuanDao »

newsbinator wrote: post #664
asimovfan wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is disappointing that this message is being downvoted.

If an AI set her up, why would it let us discuss it here?

Perhaps it's not as strong outside of the Google Campus? It could probably run a large botnet, but maybe it would want to fly under the radar with each account?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#714

Post by whoooooo123 »

angrais wrote: post #632
xiphias2 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you are right, I was working in Switzerland, not in US. What I remember clearly though is that Google's training contained material about how I am allowed to socialize with coworkers outside work, which may be allowed in the US, but it was clearly against the Swiss constitution (my job security was more important to me than speaking up about this though)

Haha, what are you talking about? Are you saying Swiss employees are legally not allowed to socialise with work colleagues? Do you honestly think this happens in practice?

I was confused by GP until I reread it and realised that the operative word is how.

I don't know anything about Swiss law or Google internal policy but I think what he's saying is that it's illegal in Switzerland to dictate how your employees socialise with each other outside of work (and perhaps to dictate anything else about how employees behave in their private lives?), not that it's illegal for employees to socialise at all.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#715

Post by wpietri »

JamesBarney wrote: post #532
wpietri wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point 1 depends on the internal channels. If you have never had the experience of management not listening to you, I congratulate you on your luck and/or your youth. As to point 2, I think that if Google didn't put "make a public stink if necessary" in the job description itself, they should have known it was part of the deal. You can't hire people for their independence and their ethics and then not expect them to b…

I've definitely had management not listen to me. But I wouldn't share that information publicly in order to get them to coerce them into making the right call. And if I did I definitely wouldn't expect to be working there for long. Should have known that they were hiring people they would later consider trouble makers is a very different goal post than part of the job description.

In which case, you see yourself not as a professional, but as a minion. That's fine, but understand that it works differently for other people.

Consider a doctor, for example. A hospital can hire them and give them orders. But they see themselves as having a duty to the patient and to society. If something isn't right, they will surely say so internally first. But if harm continues, they absolutely will raise a ruckus, up to and including talking publicly.

That's not them being a "trouble maker". That's them being professionals, not bootlickers. Whether or not the hospital administrator puts that in the job description, everybody understands it's part of the deal.

I would note that real engineers have the same sort of duty: "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/when-engin...

I think it's a little sad that many software developers see themselves as minions, but hold out hope that one day we'll become professionals.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#716

Post by whoooooo123 »

mst wrote: post #670
ALittleLight wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is she really calling Dr. Gebru one of the world's leading scientists or am I misreading something?

There seem to be quite a few people that consider Dr. Gebru to be one of the leading scientists within that specific (sub)field. I don't know the field well enough to have an opinion on the merits but it seems like a view one might disagree with but would not be surprised to find somebody to hold.

But calling someone "one of the world's leading scientists within their specific subfield" is a much, much weaker claim than calling them "one of the world's leading scientists". People in the latter category win Nobel Prizes, not Twitter fights.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#717

Post by wpietri »

prepend wrote: post #441
solveit wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The heart of the matter is what the ethics experts see as an attempt to suppress criticism of ethical problems with Google's technology. So yes, it's very much an ethics breach.

Whistleblowing need not be only about crime. It can just be about harm. [1] Indeed, with new technologies, regulation often has yet to be written, so whistleblowing can only be about harm.

[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/when-engin...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#718

Post by GavinMcG »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #556
GavinMcG wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you'd like to define racism narrowly. Not that I can get in your head, but doing so sure makes it easier to imagine ourselves as not complicit. But evil is all too often banal, and passive.

I'm not complicit. I've never been in a position of authority over hiring or loans, etc... nor have I ever treated anybody differently for their skin colour. Racism is about intent and your definition expands it well beyond what figures like MLK understood it to be. To do anything else is evil.

MLK named "the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice" as "the great stumbling block in [the] stride toward justice." I'm not expanding a thing.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#719

Post by geofft »

JamesBarney wrote: post #442
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…

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 he…

Oh, that's not the scandal at all, and I don't know why people think it is.

The scandal is that Google, already one of the most powerful entities in the world, is building an AGI and doesn't even want the slightest veneer of accountability for it. Nobody who isn't on Gebru's old team has any realistic access to know what they're really building. All we know is that the AI keeps outsmarting humans.

And now they've fired the manager in charge of the "AI ethics" team.

What are they doing such that they felt obligated to hire an AI ethics team and then ensure that team could not criticize Google?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#720

Post by mellosouls »

pseudalopex wrote: post #688
mellosouls wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You linked to a very long legalistic webpage which I don't have time to read; please link to a concise neutral reference that specifically points out she was fired because I've googled and can't find anything other than biased opinions either way.

The fact remains she threatened them with resignation; using words like "proposing for discussion" runs the risk of portraying her as an innocent victim in this for anybody who hasn't read about the original case.

For those people also, the title remains opinionated without a clear reference to a formal description of the exit that is generally accepted.

Post reply on HN