771–780 of 864 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Go woke, go broke"
All the world's trillion-dollar companies have gone woke, so I'd wager it's quite profitable. It may not seem like it to you because you're not the intended audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 .
It is not as cut and dry as a KKK recruitment flyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree Google & "Big Tech" enables them. How does Big Tech create them, though? Universities seem to be filling that role.
Could you expand on how and why you think universities are creating such individuals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google didn't say where she sent the documents. Forwarding emails to her own employment lawyers would be exfiltrating company documents technically.
Everyone is assuming it’s email, but you don’t need “a script” to search your own email, and you don’t need to risk getting fired sending emails to your lawyer, you just print them out. Or wait to get fired and get them during discovery. Google isn’t going to go into conspiracy mode and risk hundreds of millions over a line manager getting fired, that’s absurd. It wouldn’t surprise me if this “script” was trying to p…
Google Apps Script can do things Gmail search can't. Like regex.
Lawyers I know say don't rely on discovery if you can help it.
You think Google doesn't monitor printing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quote is from the article and it appears in almost every article on Internet about this topic, so they at least they are not random words. Everybody say this is a Twitter message, at least some may have read it.
"literal act of violence" isn't in the article. I haven't seen it in any article about this topic.
The quote on "literal act of violence" is a cultural reference to an article in NYT in 2017 that is now used as a way to call someone a certain kind of leftist. The entire comment is about "these people", the "activists". So these words are also not "random words in quotes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exfiltration could just mean forwarding emails to herself or her lawyer. Any lawyer would tell her not to comment on the accusations. Especially before she was fired.
It doesn’t matter if it’s her lawyer. Any lawyer would have told her not to do this because it damages her case, and the emails are discoverable anyway in pretrial. Also, I have to ask, why didn’t she just print them? Or take screen pics with her phone? Emailing things from work directly to external parties seems rather dumb for a computer expert.
Do you think Google doesn't monitor printing?
I can imagine a lawyer saying to send the documents directly and not send them to herself. It helps show she didn't distribute them to anyone else. CCing a paralegal would still make it multiple accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?" I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way? 1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, an…
> I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California la…
"Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?"
"Is it obviously lying to say resigned?"
These are two separate questions.
Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just arguing semantics. It can both be true that she was the initiator of her departure, and legally it's a firing.
Say you hire Troy Hunt to do an audit (security, IG, finance, anything), then repeatedly block them from accessing the information they need. They then email you saying "I need access to this data to be able to do my job, otherwise there's no point me being here and I should move on to something else" Another example. You hire a sales person on commission, but then deliberately stall the payment of commissions for ca…
More like storming in and demanding "either you give me root access to all systems, and the building to myself, and a promotion, or i quit!"
It's a grey area, and I agree there are cases that are not de facto resignations.
But Gebru's demands were absolutely not of the compromising kind. She was effectively demanding dictator powers.
And if "i can't do my job if i can't run the company". Well... I guess you can't do you job, then, according to yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If you worked in this field you would know how ridiculous your claims are. Dr Gebru wasn’t trying to stave off the robot apocalypse, she was interrogating biases exhibited by some neural networks due to the data they are trained on and how they are trained, which is something people have been looking at since statistical learning and statistics has existed. And when her colleagues raised reasonable scientific objecti…
And whether I work in the field or not is irrelevant (though, as it happens, I was fighting with deep learning GPU drivers just yesterday). The whole problem is the idea that nobody has the right to direct the AI beyond the people who are running the AI, that if practitioners have been "looking at" a specific concern, then it's illegitimate for anyone else to ask questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"literal act of violence" isn't in the article. I haven't seen it in any article about this topic.
I was referring to the initial quote, the "Firing ..." one. The quote on "literal act of violence" is a cultural reference to an article in NYT in 2017 that is now used as a way to call someone a certain kind of leftist. The entire comment is about "these people", the "activists". So these words are also not "random words in quotes".
No NYT article is in the top 20 Google results for that phrase. And it's a straw man in the context of Google firing Margaret Mitchell.