Live data from Hacker News

After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

morningbrew.com

211–220 of 349 posts

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just compare asking if something looks good to having them write up an assessment of Russian political history? Yeah I’ll go ahead and ask my dog walker to write me an analysis of the potential outcomes if Britain had joined against the US during the Trent affair. If they refuse I’ll fire them and write horrible reviews about them because obviously they don’t take their job seriously /s You’ve got to be kiddi…

You are totally in your rights to fire your dog walker if they refuse to write you an essay about Russian political history.

Maybe? But it doesn't make you less of an ass.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#212
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some of us are getting really tired of these witch hunts. Was he an ahole, possibly. Did Google value his contribution, probably. Did he commit any crime, doubtful. Humans are all deeply flawed and if you were to pick enough sound bites about someone across a long enough period of time you could paint them as monsters. This current climate of holier than thou rhetoric is becoming increasingly poisonous.

It’s a “witch hunt” when someone doesn’t get a promotion? No one’s calling for his arrest. They’re just saying that someone who abused his power to bully people should not be rewarded with more power over people.

And so what. If you work at take it up with them. Or if it's bad for the company or will hurt them. Or if you are shareholder take it up at the next meeting.

You and I have no idea of the context unless we are actually there. It's frankly none of our business. All these journalists and keyboard sycophants live to pull something down and destroy.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#213

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

>We had absolutely no work in Russia. Wouldn't the point of such a high level briefing be because they're tying to get work in Russia but don't already have any? It's rather common for employees to not know the details of the strategic plans of the executives until the execution starts.

1. Even if you're considering doing business in Russia, an over-broad request with insufficient context is unlikely to yield a result which is of any value. Russia is huge, and its history goes back to the 9th century. Asking for a report of its history and politics without saying anything about how the report would be used is absurd. "Prepare a report on how Russian government contracts for software services are awarded" is a prompt which might give you something useful. "Summarize more the a millennia of history and politics in a giant country" is not.

2. In the article linked in the comment above, this is given as a single example of a pattern of behavior of asking people to do things unrelated to their jobs. Surely we can understand that even if there were many examples, in this article only one could be mentioned due to space reasons. One might contrive a situation in which any single example, removed from its context, could be arguably a valid request. But if someone who worked with him observed this as a pattern rather than a single incident, doesn't that have to be taken seriously? Esp in combination with the "I crush people" and the assertion that he would humiliate people in front of their colleagues? Between the possibilities of "maybe there was a secret plan to work in Russia" and "maybe he asked for things out of personal interest disregarding people's actual roles" or "maybe he had a dysfunctional need to demonstrate power over others by having them do bullshit 'work'", I think the latter two are seem pretty plausible.

> Suleyman would also sometimes ask employees to carry out tasks unrelated to their jobs or DeepMind's work, two former employees said.

> "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' We knew it was absurd. We knew it was a waste of time. We had absolutely no work in Russia."

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#214
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was the British intelligence services, this is exactly what I’d do. Recruit bright, middle class students from Oxford, fast track their career through the NGO sector (where results don’t matter), build up their public profile with press coverage, then deploy them to the private sector and hope that they will end up inside one of the multinationals that are more powerful and influential than most countries. I mea…

That's a lot of work, for what goal?

Access to information.

Yes it’s a lot of work. What do you think all the billions spent by intelligence agencies goes towards? The people who work in the three letter agencies are some of the hardest working people on the planet.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment managed to blow my mind. Are we really trying to say the cofounder of DEEPMIND is too stupid / incompetent to have graduated from Oxford and came up with a charity as a front for it?

He was a childhood friend of Demis. The cofounder title seems to be less profound here.

Ok so the new theory is that there is nepotism present at DeepMind thanks to Demis Hassabis.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" ...but infrequent/involuntary screaming by a very senior exec does happen,... " After about 30 years in the industry, I suggest you reconsider your experience. The only place I've worked that had any kind of executive screaming was IBM, which was completely disfunctional. Someone who involuntarily screams at a coworker is someone who needs help.

There's a difference between one-off and frequent. Very big difference. A question to everyone: You screamed at anyone, ever? Oh, you screamed once, 5 years ago? Now you're a bully.

[deleted]

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#217
post #88

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

It's a total mystery to me why do people feel the urge to defend him. I kind of understand this in the case of technically brilliant but socially awkward people, but this guy seems to have done nothing but management in his life. And if this is how he's doing management then I don't understand why he's tolerated at all.

Well even in the cases of technically brilliant but socially awkward people it doesn't really make sense to place them high in the hierarchy. Unless they have no people directly under them, I suppose.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#218
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my old company it was a bit of a joke, you would repeatedly see shit managers become "architect"s. Management were too cowardly to get rid of bad managers, so they were forced to promote them to get them out of their role. So managers who were shit technically constantly ended up with senior technical titles - and everyone knew why.

Serious question: why would management be too cowardly to get rid of someone being an asshole?

Only because it is usually very hard to determine how the current projects will be affected if one gets rid of a particular manager. So the next level manager will always take the path of least resistance / least risk and move the person to a different role while having some smooth transition on projects. In reality, more often that not, this is completely unnecessary. But the person making the decision outweighs their project’s success more than the wastage of an unproductive employee. Basically a form of kicking that can down the road.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#219

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

It's absolutely fine for an exec to ask an employee to do "x" task, where there is value for the company, even if it is not in the employee's scope. This is a moot point, and I'm astonished we're even debating this. What has the world come to? So, imagine I ask my developer or even my accountant on a one-off, rare occasion: "write me a critique of this new UX design". He replies "How dare you ask me about UX design!"…

> “We had absolutely no work in Russia”

Seems to imply a lack of business value, so you don’t have to be that astonished. No one reading this has enough information about whether the business value of that actually existed or not, but at that statement should explain to you why people are upset at this.

Secondly, the degree to which a task is close to the domain the employee was hired for also matters. For example, hiring a software engineer to do misc tasks like this clearly shows a lack of proper management. You either do it yourself as a manager or hire the headcount to get these kinds of misc tasks done. E.g. executive assistants/ secretary etc.

Asking someone for their opinion on UX design is very different from asking someone to prepare a brief on Russian history.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#220

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

It's absolutely fine for an exec to ask an employee to do "x" task, where there is value for the company, even if it is not in the employee's scope. This is a moot point, and I'm astonished we're even debating this. What has the world come to? So, imagine I ask my developer or even my accountant on a one-off, rare occasion: "write me a critique of this new UX design". He replies "How dare you ask me about UX design!"…

The implication is that this is just bullshit fake work being sent down in an effort to assert control and dominance over someone.
Post reply on HN