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

731–740 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#731

Post by marricks »

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?

Google created these jobs and deemed them important. Like I agree, if AI ethics researchers are doing their job correctly Google will be unhappy with them, but this is really what Google offered, lots of freedom.

You can be as cynical as you want but the fact Google fired them with little rhyme or reason and destroyed their team is BAD thing, we should be upset at Google for it.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#732

Post by zajio1am »

wbl wrote: post #170
jseliger wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised to find more companies shifting to a "leave politics and religion at the door" stance again: https://jakeseliger.com/2020/12/03/dissent-insiders-and-outs...

You can leave politics and religion at the door, but if you serve ham sandwiches at the Christmas party don't be surprised when people complain.

> You can leave politics and religion at the door, but if you serve ham sandwiches at the Christmas party don't be surprised when people complain.

If you leave religion at the door, you would not have Christmas party.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#733

Post by pseudalopex »

mellosouls wrote: post #720
pseudalopex wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Legal guidelines are legalistic. I provided a concise neutral summary. And you have time to read if you have time to argue.

"Proposed" and "discuss" are neutral. "Threatened" and "bluff" are loaded. And anyone this far into the comments should have read about the original case.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#734

Post by jboog »

Kranar wrote: post #49
jboog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you have one example of someone being fired at...Evergreen college or whatever And some guy who was temporarily suspended and then immediately reinstated. And this proves profs with tenure have the same or worse protections than employees of private industry? Have you ever heard of "at-will employment"?

The Evergreen example is incorrect, Bret Weinstein was not fired from Evergreen. He sued the college and resigned as part of a settlement in which he and his wife received a combined $500,000 payout.

Wow. even worse.

This is one of the things that really annoys me about the anti cancel-culture warriors.

I get it, there has been some excess, some poor decisions made, but the hyperbolic, bad faith, and often dishonest framing they often use makes me really suspect of basically anything they say.

In MOST states in the US your boss can fire you for NO REASON at all. Or ANY reason save a few federally protected reasons like race/gender etc. That's "at-will" employment.

Anyone who tells you this is the same as the protections tenured profs have is a liar or complete moron.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#735

Post by refenestrator »

geofft wrote: post #719
JamesBarney wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fir…

The paper in question's big claim was that language generators could repeat phrases like "both genders".

There are actual ethical concerns here, you mention some bigger ones, why die on that hill?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#736

Post by room500 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #690
refurb wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But it is acting as if it wasn't a mutual agreement.

Maybe "resignation" doesn't meet your criteria. But "firing" implied that the employee wanted to keep their job but the company ended it.

Would you accept "mutual termination" ?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#737

Post by mellosouls »

pseudalopex wrote: post #733
mellosouls wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Legal guidelines are legalistic. I provided a concise neutral summary. And you have time to read if you have time to argue. "Proposed" and "discuss" are neutral. "Threatened" and "bluff" are loaded. And anyone this far into the comments should have read about the original case.

I'm not a lawyer and have no intention of deciding the legal definitions of this case myself, I look to those who actually know what they are talking about to do so. I note you still haven't provided a link to anybody clarifying it in a reasonably neutral way; I suspect there isn't one without bias (either way).

Nobody "proposes" resignation in such circumstances to an employer unless they are fully in battle. And according to this article she acknowledged that herself:

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/17/947719354/ousted-black-google...

Gebru herself said no such offer was ever extended, only threatened

My original point stands - the article title is somewhat loaded.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#738

Post by mcphage »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #729
civilized wrote: post #725

For context: 1. Gebru is alleged to have terrorized a Google Brain manuscript discussion forum with unfounded accusations of racist disregard for her contributions https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t... There is some disagreement within this thread as to exactly what happened, but it seems to me that Gebru had a tendency of taking perceived slights and blowing them out of proportion, creating…

Mitchell ran a scripts to scrape emails (wonder if it was her company ones or mailing lists for the AI group) for signs of racism (heck how on earth does that work) against Gebru.

> heck how on earth does that work

Scraping text to analyze what is being talked about is what Google does.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#739

Post by room500 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #642
taurath wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel as though people looking joining such a group would have at the very first question “what is the scope of what we will be studying” or something similar. I don’t think people take jobs like that without having a decent answer to that question and I haven’t seen any accusations of bait and switch, only of poor treatment over a disagreeing researcher ballooning into this.

I'm pretty confident the crux of the issue is "We expected to be treated better in this department than what we have had to tolerate elsewhere due to sexism, racism, etc." And I think they expected that based on "This is the Ethical AI department. We are trying to make the world a better place. You do that by walking the walk first, not just researching how AI works." That's what I think. It's not something I can pro…

Thank you for the perspective.

Assuming you are correct, is there a way to reset expectations without blowing up the department? Not that we shouldn't be striving to be ethical, but it is clear that Google doesn't like the direction the team is heading.

If Google is truly interested in the thorny issues of making AI as ethical as possible, can it do so without tackling the (seemingly insurmountable) issue of social ethics? And if not, do we just throw in the towel and cross our fingers that AI doesn't hurt us too much?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#740

Post by pseudalopex »

room500 wrote: post #736
pseudalopex wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it firing isn't acting like it was out of the blue.

But it is acting as if it wasn't a mutual agreement. Maybe "resignation" doesn't meet your criteria. But "firing" implied that the employee wanted to keep their job but the company ended it. Would you accept "mutual termination" ?

It wasn't a mutual agreement. She wanted to keep her job until she was back from vacation at least.[1]

[1] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667

Post reply on HN