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

About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 607 posts

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#151

Post by fdasfsdafsa »

nebulous1 wrote: post #131
asfadfdsa wrote: post #46

There are a lot of people commenting that she didn't actually resign. I agree, but it sounds like the conversation went like this: employee: I'm not happy about x, y and z. If you don't do those, I'm going to quit. manager: well we are not going to do those, so thank you for your time. We accept your resignation and would like it to start immediately (i.e. you're fired). If you are gonna tell your manager that you pl…

> manager: well we are not going to do those, so thank you for your time. We accept your resignation and would like it to start immediately (i.e. you're fired). The thing is, there's a big difference between resigning and being fired for cause, even if both end with you not working at the company anymore.

IANAL, but my best guess is that she was just let go without cause. Your employer can fire you at any time and technically doesn't need a reason. Typically, "terminated with cause" is a specific thing where they fire you and give a specific reason (e.g. stealing) that might have bearing on whether you receive unemployment benefits, accrued vacation, etc. It's hard to imagine that they fired her in that way and that she was just plain-old-fired (there's a reason for it, but not legal cause).

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#153

Post by genericone »

mstg wrote: post #117
bgribble wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to her Twitter feed, Timnit was asking for the same transparency that normally goes with Google pub reviews -- where all the reviewers and their feedback are known to the reviewee. This red-stamp "review" did not follow the normal review process. Not a Googler, just going on what she says: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334881120920498180

Considering her previous attacks to anyone who disagrees with her and her previous public feuds, I'd say people may be afraid of being stamped as a racist/sexist because they had to reject her paper. She was a disruptive employee who threatened her employer and the employer didn't accept it. Why is Google obliged to keep her employed?

That's an angle I had not considered. She has a reputation for retaliation using -isms and those reviewers were able to successfully ask their employer for protections against a historically confrontational coworker. Google as a company takes the hit, as it is in their great interest to prevent their less-vocal employees from getting raked into a public fight.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#154

Post by jonathankoren »

x0x0 wrote: post #118
ketzo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right -- he once again talks about "accepting" her resignation, when it reeeeeally just looks like they fired her. At the very least, she certainly feels like she was fired; why is that not mentioned at all? Even just, I don't know, "sorry we were abrupt?"

Dean previously said this [1] > Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept a…

Having your research -- the very rationale for your employment -- being squashed by execs suddenly without explaination, and in a highly unusual procedure, should make you question whether you are able to effectively continue in your role, or whether you're simply window dressing.

It looks like Google's AI Ethics team is meant to be green washing.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#155

Post by johncena33 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #99
noitpmeder wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what else they should have done? This researcher made some ultimatum. As part of it, she said if Google refused, she would set a date to leave the company. Google obviously did not concede to her demand, and obviously didn't think it beneficial to let her be a thorn any longer, so took her up on her offer.

She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.

> She didn't offer to resign immediately.

Just out of curiosity why would Google let her resign on a sepcific date given that she was already sending inflammatory emails to her coworkers?

> Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.

Highly unlikely. This issue has become politicized, so people would keep ciriticizing Google even if they let her.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#156

Post by mikeryan »

bgribble wrote: post #79
nova22033 wrote: post #19

Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resig…

According to her Twitter feed, Timnit was asking for the same transparency that normally goes with Google pub reviews -- where all the reviewers and their feedback are known to the reviewee. This red-stamp "review" did not follow the normal review process. Not a Googler, just going on what she says: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334881120920498180

You can read Timnit's letter/POV here https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#157

Post by pseudalopex »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #130
pseudalopex wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She didn't offer to resign immediately. Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just accepted her actual offer.

Seriously, I'm kinda a little wondering how people expect that when someone makes an extremely demanding ultimatum that includes challenging the rights of other people in the company, and the company declines to agree to that ultimatum, that we should be shocked that the person doesn't get to dictate all of the details around their resignation. What I get most from this whole discussion is the extremely nauseating le…

Fewer people would be criticizing Google if they just called the firing a firing.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#158

Post by mtgx »

acoard wrote: post #64
theobeers wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the examples of issues flagged in review that Jeff keeps highlighting—like Timnit’s alleged failure to mention recent work to reduce the environmental impact of large models—are themselves a bit worrisome. Jeff gives the impression that they demanded retraction (!) because they wanted Timnit and her coauthors to soften their critique. The more I read about this, the worse it looks.

Yeah, put more simply, they pushed out someone in their Ethical AI department because they did not soften critiques against AI enough. They couch these in terms of rigour, but the substance of the problem has to do with her criticisms against AI. Ultimately it makes the whole Ethical AI department look more like a rubber stamp for Google.

I remember when Google made a whole big deal about their "AI Ethics Board" (or something along those lines), and then not even a year later they reshuffled it because those people were too critical of the company's practices.

And then when there was backlash they "promised to do better" and Sundar Pichai came out with some "principles" that the company would follow for AI.

Another 1-2 years later and here we are again - this just proves that whatever "AI Ethics Board" they might set-up, it will end up being a sham, because they'd never allow that board to stop them from using AI however they like if it's in the interest of the company's profit growth.

If we want real AI oversight we need to demand it from outside nonprofits or even government agencies (why not both?!) - and there should be zero affiliation between the company being monitored and those organizations/agencies.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#159

Post by nebulous1 »

that_guy_iain wrote: post #125
nebulous1 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone says "Do X or I'll quit" when you're not going to do X, it is a resigination I mean, whether or not this stands up legally isn't worth discussing but I don't think this is typically how an ultimatum goes. Rather it's more along the lines of "this or I'll quit", "okay, we're not doing this", "right, I quit". It's not called calling your bluff for nothing. I agree that her email to the Brain group makes he…

> However, it might make her choose not to fight them on the resignation. How can she fight? Just curious, the US is almost completely an at will employment. Fighting to get your name dirted that you didn't resign but were fired, seems odd. Google seems to saving face for her if anything.

> How can she fight? Just curious, the US is almost completely an at will employment.

Even with a contract? I know little enough about US labour laws, although I'm pretty sure it's not at-will all over. Where I am (not the US) you can sue for unfair dismissal.

> Fighting to get your name dirted that you didn't resign but were fired, seems odd.

Yeah, I agree if there's a good chance if the resignation stands. However if she could get a court to say she was unfairly dismissed it might be a different case, as it would help her case that Google have acted unfairly towards her. None of this publicity is going to help her future employment potential generally but may help in niche circles that she might be aiming for.

Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean

#160

Post by Aunche »

bnj wrote: post #5

While I’m a spectator to this unfolding story and am reacting to a pretty cursory overview of what happened, this has the distinct feeling that Google thought they were moving in for a checkmate by, in their words, “accepting a resignation”, only to have it — very predictably? - blow up in their faces completely. Even if Google is acting presenting the chain of events faithfully, their final move to jump on an opport…

I think that Google viewed her as a ticking time bomb, so they might as well detonate it early to try to contain explosion. She had threatened to sue Google in the past and was most likely gathering even more ammunition for her lawyers.

Edit: I'm not sure what this tweet is referencing, but it's an indicator of her attitude towards her superiors, I can see why they would want to let go of her.

https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824

Post reply on HN