Tensions in Google's ethical AI group increase as it sends demands to CEO

Post by shadowfox » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

Majestic121 wrote: post #143

jasonhong wrote: post #130

I find it interesting how, in the other current thread about an antitrust suit against Google ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25448718 ) that people there are criticizing Google's lack of ethics, and in this thread people are criticizing a team in Google whose goal is to try to get Google to act more ethically.

Ethics is a large subject, people can be interested in certain branches and not others. I guess the 'bias and inequality in AI' is less striking a cord for the HN crowd than 'fair business practices'

Post by Nimitz14 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

Jabbles wrote: post #122

ergocoder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why this matters. Timnit gave an ultimatum (i.e. do this or I'll leave). Google agreed to her condition of parting way. This is like I go to my boss and ask for a $1 billion dollars. Otherwise, I'll leave. Then, my boss decides that I should leave since the boss can't give me $1b. Then, I keep telling my friends that "well, I'm actually fired.". huh?

> This is like I go to my boss and ask for a $1 billion dollars. How about if you go to your boss and demand that the racial discrimination you're experiencing stops? Since we don't have the original email, we can't tell. But I bet it's closer to my example than yours.

Post by cbozeman » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

panpanna wrote: post #168

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I'm not really trying to defend Google one way or the other. At the end of the day it seemed like Gebru published a paper that was quite critical of how Google intends to make a sizable portion of their revenue, and anyone should understand that when you do that in a large company, it's going to get extra scrutiny. And it could very well be that the whole purpose of Google's "ethical AI" team in the first plac…

So basically Gebru was fired for turning Googles fake ethics group into a real ethics group?

Post by Aunche » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #140

username90 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google didn't fire her for her research, they fired her for being toxic. She was toxic because some of her coworkers didn't accept her research, but most people would have handled the situation without being toxic and if she did she wouldn't have gotten fired.

The only evidence of toxicity was an email she sent after being forced to retract a paper that she wouldn't have to retract under proper academic circumstances, based on feedback they weren't even going to provide to her. That's not toxic, that's anger. One angry incident, justified or not, does not make the case for firing a "toxic" employee.

Post by tomdell » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

uh_uh wrote: post #165

GVIrish wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper was submitted on time, other papers at Google were submitted for review after they were released. By Jeff Dean's own admission the paper was approved for release. The demand for retraction was initially given while refusing to state what the reason(s) for the demand were. Only after the meeting where they demanded she retract the paper did they belatedly agree to read her the feedback that they stated as th…

Excerpt from Jeff Dean's email: > Timnit co-authored a paper with four fellow Googlers as well as some external collaborators that needed to go through our review process (as is the case with all externally submitted papers). We’ve approved dozens of papers that Timnit and/or the other Googlers have authored and then published, but as you know, papers often require changes during the internal review process (or are e…