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

Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–179 of 179 posts

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#171

Post by torstenvl »

shkkmo wrote: post #6
hartator wrote: post #3

Didn’t she gave an ultimatum? Do this or I resign? And they are like we can’t do this so we consider you terminated?

If someone says "if you don't fix this thing I will look for work elsewhere" that doesn't mean that you can say "I accept your resignation." If you want that person gone immediately, you have to fire them.

Yes, actually, it does. That's how the disjunctive "or" works.

If I tell Perl to

    do_the_thing() || die();
then the Perl interpreter is well within its rights to say "Well, doing the thing doesn't work, so I am terminating your script." Indeed, that is what one would expect it to do.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#172

Post by raxxorrax »

motoboi wrote: post #52
kd913 wrote: post #12

It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?

Because she is was an ethicist in google, an AI company. People are very afraid that google fired her because they don't care about bias and unethical use in AI. So, for us that care about google's use of AI and ethical use of it, it's important to understand what happened.

The main ethical problem of AI is it quantifying every possible metric that can be attached to individuals and resulting reduction of said subject. Talk about bias, which is mostly inevitable, is a cheap distraction at best, even though AIs will mostly be stereotype generators in the beginning. It still isn't even good or foundational criticism about ethical AI programs.

That said, I don't believe that decisions about application of AI can be made internally at Google. These are basically PR jobs that come with the product.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#173

Post by Shish2k »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #104

This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one. It's getting so much debate! I think everybody understands that she gave an ultimatum that included a "or else I will resign." I think everybody understands that Google responded with a "you are out as of now" that took her by surprise. And yet there are a bazillion articles debating what verb best describes that pair of events. I get that there is…

I think this is the argument equivalent of bikeshedding in design documentation - people feel like they need to have an opinion, and “which one verb best summarises these two events?” is the discussion with the lowest barrier to entry.

Additionally, in this world where barely anybody reads past a headline, that discussion does have _some_ merit, even if every other part of this issue is _more_ important...

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#174

Post by thu2111 »

Shish2k wrote: post #173
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #104

This whole question of resigned or fired seems like such a weird one. It's getting so much debate! I think everybody understands that she gave an ultimatum that included a "or else I will resign." I think everybody understands that Google responded with a "you are out as of now" that took her by surprise. And yet there are a bazillion articles debating what verb best describes that pair of events. I get that there is…

I think this is the argument equivalent of bikeshedding in design documentation - people feel like they need to have an opinion, and “which one verb best summarises these two events?” is the discussion with the lowest barrier to entry. Additionally, in this world where barely anybody reads past a headline, that discussion does have _some_ merit, even if every other part of this issue is _more_ important...

I don't think it's a need to have an opinion. They're trying to spin it as a firing so they can claim Gebru is an oppressed black woman who's a victim of racism. If she resigned then that narrative falls flat.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#175

Post by thu2111 »

sleepytimetea wrote: post #35

When I worked at Google, there was always this sinister edge to all corporate events and communications and their culture, in general. It was like that Star Trek episode - everything is paradise unless you commit a transgression. Any transgression, even minor, would result in your termination. In the Star Trek episode, it meant death, at Google, luckily, it just meant an involuntary "resignation".

No clue what part of Google you worked at but that's the exact opposite of the company I worked at. Non-eng lived in fear of eng employees because the latter were widely seen as unfireable regardless of how bizarre or problematic their behaviour could become.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#176

Post by thu2111 »

barbacoa wrote: post #108
djeikyb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalists got access to an early version of Gebru’s paper and reported on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...

>>"the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, for example, have tried to establish a new anti-sexist and anti-racist vocabulary. An AI model trained on vast swaths of the internet won’t be attuned to the nuances of this vocabulary and won’t produce or interpret language in line with these new cultural norms." It's terrifying that these are the kind of views people in high places of major tech companies have. And tha…

Yeah. That's the real story here and a very interesting one, but journalists would rather commit suicide than cover it.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#177

Post by thu2111 »

zorpner wrote: post #29
oh_sigh wrote: post #5

Why would other employees be knowledgeable in the employment relationship between someone and a company? Unless the employees are in the direct management chain, or HR or something, aren't they just parroting what Timnit is claiming?

In fact, Timnit Gebru's actual manager has issued a specific statement on this. It's on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=34697380164672... Full text: Just wanted to say that I was stunned by what just happened to Timnit Gebru, who was in my team until a few days ago (I'm sure you've all read what happened already). I have always been and will remain a strong supporter of her scientific work to…

There's another Googler who needs to be fired. Anyone who uses phrases like "minoritized" (that's not a word) or "the silenced ones" is quite clearly fighting the culture war and not even slightly interested in the norms of management. What kind of a manager "stands by" someone who is as completely poisonous as this woman is? What kind of "generosity" did she show to her colleagues when she demanded their identities and called them racist on Twitter?

Google needs a massive clear-out. People aren't doing their jobs anymore there, they've become so obsessed with fictional narratives about non-existent racism and sexism.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#178

Post by thu2111 »

Where is Sundar Pichai in all of this? Why is it up to Jeff Dean to publicly represent the company? Pichai appears to be in hiding, as per usual. It's astounding how weak he is, especially compared to the very strong decision making that typified life under Larry/Sergey/Eric.

It's obvious that people like Gebru terrorise their colleagues by claiming anyone who doesn't join their racist jihad against white men are terrible and need to be fired. When Pichai canned Damore he set Google up for a never ending strem of events like this one: he basically told the extremist activist wing of the workforce that they were in charge, not him. Very few tech CEOs in America are more deserving of being replaced than Pichai but given the voting structure of Google stock it's hard to see how that can happen.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#179

Post by itsdrewmiller »

BeetleB wrote: post #36
shkkmo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally speaking, that is not true at all. Edit: if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired.

> if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired. I can't speak for California, but in my state, if you are fired and not laid off[1], you don't get unemployment benefits. I've anecdotally heard this is also the case in California. However, I've also heard that many tech companies state they will not dispute…

This is hard to believe - which state are you in? Are you confusing "fired" (generally used for any non-layoff termination) with "for cause"?
Post reply on HN