Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 238 posts

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#51

Post by gonehome »

21723 wrote: post #45
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

Obviously don't know the full context of why Satrajit Chatterjee was fired, but I can say that I followed the Timnit Gebru story quite closely, and there was a gigantic chasm, IMO, between what actually happened (and by "what actually happened" I mean that I'm conservatively just considering Gebru's own statements and tweets) and how things were reported in the wider press. The press will always be incentivized to re…

It sounds like you're alleging that Timnit Gebru (whom I've never met, but who seems like a fine person from what I have read) is "toxic" and that working with her would be "a nightmare" to you. Am I correct in inferring this?

Not OP, but here's an old thread from the last time this came up which is the bit I'm remembering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25297823

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#52

Post by dekhn »

ghaff wrote: post #30
oh_sigh wrote: post #11

Were they fired because they challenged the findings, or were they fired for their behavior after being told their paper wasn't up to snuff for some reason? Same thing with Timnit...was she fired(or "resignation accepted") because of a paper she was writing, or was she fired because of her behavior after being told the paper needed more review(or whatever)? I really doubt that Google is so wrapped up in the "computer…

Publicly "fired for cause" would seem like a pretty spectacular overreaction to someone having an academic disagreement with ML vs. human performance in some domain of chip design. Sufficiently spectacular that I'm essentially certain there's more to the story. Timnit was at least in a more... fraught area.

Timnit was fired for cause- the cause was being a jerk to coworkers repeatedly (she repeatedly attacked internal researchers on internally public mailing lists in an unprofessional way). I still don't understand why Megan and jeff tried to pitch it as a resignation or that it was about that specific paper not being withdrawn (Megan didn't even understand the difference between a submitted paper being withdrawn, and a published paper being retracted). Either way, the outcome of that situation is: Jeff doesn't really run Research any more and Megan is permanently sidelined, and now Timnit has an independently funded institute where she can say whatever she wants (her current position is that techbros are eugenicists).

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#53

Post by robonerd »

Google AI ethicists and other researchers would be wise to recognize the delta between why Google ostensibly has them, and why Google actually has them. If they aren't tailoring their research to whatever Google executives want to hear, then they aren't doing what they're actually being paid for. And if they want to be honest researchers instead of corporate whores, they picked the wrong company to work for.

Would an honest climatologist last long working for Exxon? Would an honest cancer researcher last long working for Phillip Morris?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#54

Post by dehrmann »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

Obviously don't know the full context of why Satrajit Chatterjee was fired, but I can say that I followed the Timnit Gebru story quite closely, and there was a gigantic chasm, IMO, between what actually happened (and by "what actually happened" I mean that I'm conservatively just considering Gebru's own statements and tweets) and how things were reported in the wider press. The press will always be incentivized to re…

I'm surprised news outlets still report that Timnit Gebru was fired. It's at best disputed.

This case looks much clearer; he was terminated with cause.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#55

Post by N1H1L »

protomyth wrote: post #29
xadhominemx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never experienced anything like this during the course of my government funded research. Nor did I hear of anyone else experiencing anything like this. Of course, your topic area has to align with government funders’ interests… but in my experience the conclusions do not.

I take it you never had a grant director run afoul of one of the consulting firms on I Street who didn't get the follow-on evaluation contract? 25 years and I'm still a bit peeved about how politics and who gets what makes government research such a pain in the butt. Every agency has its prejudices also which leads to some shenanigans. Sorta off topic tip: if you are writing government grants and are in a position to…

What?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#56

Post by canaus »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

Obviously don't know the full context of why Satrajit Chatterjee was fired, but I can say that I followed the Timnit Gebru story quite closely, and there was a gigantic chasm, IMO, between what actually happened (and by "what actually happened" I mean that I'm conservatively just considering Gebru's own statements and tweets) and how things were reported in the wider press. The press will always be incentivized to re…

Can you give some example Tweets to where you concluded that these (Gebru in this example) are some of the most toxic individuals you could imagine? All of my searches are of random topics.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#57

Post by DoneWithAllThat »

21723 wrote: post #43

The really brazen thing here is that Google is claiming he was fired "with cause". People get let go all the time: layoffs, management changes, redundnacies. Usually, the company and manager try to avoid any legal or PR risk by saying nothing and letting the departing employee own the story. The fact that they're not doing this--that they're going out of their way to 9/11 someone's reputation after he's gone--suggest…

What? No it doesn’t suggest that at all. When employees make the choice to make their termination public it’s very common for companies to offer reasoning. Any company. The takeaway that “someone in power is really, really pissed off” is nonsense.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#58

Post by leephillips »

yodon wrote: post #46
guhidalg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? I picked the first professor from MIT's CSAIL group (Hal Abelson), found their latest published paper ( https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl... ) and found that they are funded by a Chinese governmental organization. Tell me how the research isn't being influenced by the needs and desires of the funder?

MIT CSAIL is not hard up for funding, nor is Hal Abelson. They can choose who they want to take money from. Funding sources that restrain a researcher's ability to publish damage that researcher's ability to advance their own career. Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Microsoft Research, however is one of the biggest sources of computer science research funding i…

“Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft”.

Perhaps. Many people here on HN also have an entirely rational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Some of those people are also capable of appreciating their support for research.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#59

Post by trompetenaccoun »

yodon wrote: post #15
verisimi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you have that much money that you can fund lots of studies, the only ones that will proceed are the ones in support of whatever-it-is.

> But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you are in academic science doing publicly funded academic research, as most academics do, then yes, your funding agency does want you to get the results published, period. The conspiracy theories you've been led to believe are just that, conspiracy theories, not the objective realities of those doing the wor…

It's not a matter of publishing, it's a matter of funding the research in the first place. What academic field are you in where this isn't a problem? Even something as seemingly inconspicuous as physics research is highly political.

Researchers know the ideas that one better doesn't question if one cares about job security. Or put in a more positive way: You better look into -current list of hype topics- if you want to continue getting funded, being cited and staying relevant. The problem with "academic science" as you call it is that it's mostly academic and not enough science.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#60

Post by Y-bar »

robonerd wrote: post #53

Google AI ethicists and other researchers would be wise to recognize the delta between why Google ostensibly has them, and why Google actually has them. If they aren't tailoring their research to whatever Google executives want to hear, then they aren't doing what they're actually being paid for. And if they want to be honest researchers instead of corporate whores, they picked the wrong company to work for. Would an…

Maybe they thought Google was a mostly okay company with good potential and were under the impression that what they were hired for was to help them improve? There was after all a time when many of us really believed Google was a good kind of company and that it generally adhered to the "don't be evil" ethos.

I can see myself falling into a similar trap of wishful thinking, especially if corporate communication reinforces it (until the cold shower wakeup happens).

Post reply on HN