Tangentially: who decided to make the links all purple, horrible ux.
Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
81–90 of 238 posts
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's... still a firing, no? What it's not, is a lay-off.
The 'he' in "he was terminated with cause" is not referring to Gebru, but rather to Chatterjee.
That Chatterjee was fired is seemingly not in dispute, but there was a lot of disagreement on HN over whether Gebru was fired or quit (she offered an ultimatum, which Google accepted.)
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#83Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd have a hard time working with her because she says that the techbros of silicon valley are eugenicists. timnit's repsonse to https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/22/1050394/artifici... was "this was a beautiful article to read after spending all weekend reading about the modern day eugenics movement underlying much of the whole AGI stuff." She sort of godwins her arguments.
Quoted post unavailable.
I never expected to read „eugenics“ and „html“ in the same sentence.
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's... still a firing, no? What it's not, is a lay-off.
The 'he' in "he was terminated with cause" is not referring to Gebru, but rather to Chatterjee. That Chatterjee was fired is seemingly not in dispute, but there was a lot of disagreement on HN over whether Gebru was fired or quit (she offered an ultimatum, which Google accepted.)
Ah, OK, sorry, I misunderstood the context.
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There was a huge divide between r/machinelearning threads and twitter. I'd start with the megathread. https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t...
Can you be more specific?
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#87> ...and the researchers hoped to bring the issue to CEO Sundar Pichai and Alphabet's board of directors. Um, what? The board of directors has no interest in this.
This is probably the most under-rated comment in the thread. Speaking as a scientist in industry, polluting executive attention with internal spats over publication clearance is cause enough for termination.
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#88There is insufficient information here to make any judgement. It’s clear that the journalists involved want us to make a set of suppositions that support their narrative about Timnit, but the reporting doesn’t support that conclusion — or really, any conclusion at all. It’s vapor — outrage bait.
No post body was provided.
Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd have a hard time working with her because she says that the techbros of silicon valley are eugenicists. timnit's repsonse to https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/22/1050394/artifici... was "this was a beautiful article to read after spending all weekend reading about the modern day eugenics movement underlying much of the whole AGI stuff." She sort of godwins her arguments.
Quoted post unavailable.
I gave a single example, please see her entire twitter feed. She says this over and over in multiple ways and it's quite clear what she is saying and whom she includes.
Beyond that, what I saw her write in internal groups at Google was simple not acceptable within reasonable bounds.