In her email she claims that she is constantly being dehumanized. This is unacceptable to someone in her amazing position and to be honest sounds like she is a narcissist. I think Google couldn't wait to get rid of her (cannot blame them, she wanted to sue the company a year prior, also "represented" the company really bad on social media) and her email with demands was their opportunity. I don't think she would survive in any company. She is better off starting her own company or going to academia. I don't feel bad for her, I'm sure she already got multiple offers. Not from FB that's for sure though :)
About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
191–200 of 607 posts
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#192> 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 It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of…
Isn’t it pretty normal to ask to “face your accuser” and engage with feedback specifically, instead of an anonymous and unassailable red stamp?
This tweet may explain why the reviewers do not want to be confronted:
> Nothing like a bunch of privileged White men trying to squash research by marginalized communities for marginalized communities by ordering them to STOP with ZERO conversation. The amount of disrespect is incredible. Every time I think about it my blood starts boiling again.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your work is suddenly and unexpected roadblocked at the last second by internal review, the only way to make changes that prevent that from happening in the future is to clearly understand the situations and criticisms that led to the roadblock. This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important. Anonymous feedback blowing up a project at the final moments is sure to frustrate anybody. If what she ha…
Isn't the academic journal peer review process generally an anonymous feedback mechanism? Why does this need to be different?
> academic journal peer review process
Fro my understanding, this paper had already passed peer review and been accepted. Google management then decided to block the publication using the IP review process.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#194Yesterday the conversation was all over the tone of the email exchange, and my gut was regardless of the research it discussed that Google was probably alright to choose to accept that researcher's resignation. Now I think I was wrong, Google looks like they're full of crap. If the research doesn't pass muster I'd like to read it and pass my own judgement. I'm guessing the tone was justified.
If oyu are paid by Google, Google has a right to vet your external work related to your position.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called. If I walk into a manager's office and demand 2x salary or I walk and the response is "we believe you are fairly compensated," you're now in a rather uncomfortable situation. Which is of course not to say you can't have a more measured negotiation. But it can be hard to walk back from give me X or I do Y, especially if there isn't a lo…
> People bluff but you generally have to be prepared to walk if your bluff is called. Then you aren't bluffing.
How do you figure that? If I hold 27 off suit then I still have to be prepared to show my hand if you call me. Doesn't mean my all-in raise wasn't bluffing.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#196Timnit 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…
Not really. People bluff in negotiations all the time. A normal response would have been, “I can’t do that. Are you still committed to leaving?” Instead Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why. It also indicates that they don’t particularly value her in progress work in the lab since normally you want the 2 weeks or whatever to squeeze some wrap up work out of folks.
> Google went all scorched earth and it’s still unclear why
Possibly because she made a personal problem into a team/department problem by asking their colleagues to stop working ("stop writing your documents because it doesn’t make a difference"). I couldn't imagine a company where such a call for work refusal wouldn't immediately lose you a ton of goodwill.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the language weren’t so direct? For example, > If I can’t know who is providing reviews to my work, it’s difficult for me to imagine continuing to work as a part of this group. Many people would still describe this (erroneously) as an ultimatum even though it could be bleakly summarized in the same vein as a true ultimatum.
It's more nicely worded to be sure, and definitely less aggressive, but it still says the same thing, which is "I'm gonna be an unhappy employee if I can't find out who reviewed my work". If they aren't willing to tell her who reviewed her work (which they may or may not have valid reasons for doing, but clearly they don't want to do), then they are dealing with someone who is going to be an unhappy employee since th…
I vehemently disagree with just your first paragraph. (Your second and arguably more important paragraph I’m sympathetic to.) People state their feelings toward things all the time and none of it should ever be considered permanent. I’ve told my boss many times something of similar ilk, “if you’re going to have me and my team do this last minute demo when it was fully in your capacity to plan better, I’m going to be pretty unhappy.” Even to that I demand things change. Yet, for some reason, I’m not fired afterward as a “disgruntled employee” or “somebody who can’t be happy working”. I take time to understand my boss’s disposition and I strongly seek my boss to understand mine, and hopefully we end up in a better place afterward.
What’s wrong with Google saying, “we refuse to comply with your demands, and we understand you may feel blablabla. We are trying to streamline our submission process and we would like you to help us do that.”? Maybe it’s because Google doesn’t actually have a desire to work with her, in which case, the ultimatum (or whatever it truly was) is just a convenient out.
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google isnt publicly funded academic institution. Whatever they are doing, in particular publishing, is part of the business/PR. So if the management sees something not good for business it is a reasonable that they decided to not do it. If i were a shareholder i can see how i may have questioned why a person being paid $1M+/year (my understanding this is minimum what a manager in AI at Google would be making) for pu…
In most cases, yes. In this case, because the paper was about bias in Google's AI models, it might not be just a business decision because the racial bias described in that paper might result in a disparate impact on users, which could be in violation of state or federal law.
This is pretty dystopian ...
1. There exist laws to prevent discrimination against people based on protected attributes 2. ML models make predictions based on attributes without interpretability (it's not possible to prove that protected attributes are not factoring into model predictions) 3. Empirical observation that a model proxies a protected property exposes corporation to liability for regulatory non compliance 4. Therefore any study that could expose bias of a model used in production is to be road blocked or prevented ...
To combat flows like above -- seems like regulators are going to need to update rules with third party audits and an incentive structure that encourages self-regulation and derisks self-detection and self-reporting of non-intentional violations... ideally google should not be put into a position where it is incentivized to police its own ai ethics research to ensure that such research doesn't expose their own illegal/non-compliant activity ...
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah, put more simply, they pushed out someone in their Ethical AI department because they did not soften critiques against AI enough. I didn't read that. I read the person _demanded_ who said a particular critical feedback, or questioned the approaches instead of addressing them. The person gave the ultimatum to resign if details were not shared.
If your work is suddenly and unexpected roadblocked at the last second by internal review, the only way to make changes that prevent that from happening in the future is to clearly understand the situations and criticisms that led to the roadblock. This is why understanding who raised these concerns is important. Anonymous feedback blowing up a project at the final moments is sure to frustrate anybody. If what she ha…
>Now might be a good time to remind everyone that the easiest way to discriminate is to make stringent rules, then to decide when and for whom to enforce them.
--Nicolas Le Roux
Re: About Google's approach to research publication – Jeff Dean
#200It's frankly unprofessional for Jeff Dean to post only his email in this document without providing more context. The news media has in cases provided balanced coverage that included the email from Timnit that prompted Google's action: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a... This post from Jeff Dean simply underscores that he has failed to balance the need for diplomacy with the research thesi…
Excerpts were already being leaked on HN. The 'email from Timnit' doesn't exactly look good... I would expect a manager posting company lists in that manner to be dismissed (or a junior employee to receive some mentioning about professional conduct, if not dismissed). I don't believe anyone has published the ultimatum email, which I think would be more accurately described as what precipitated the outcome.
I hope Timnit finds it [1]. Google has it in their email servers but I doubt they'll publish it.
[1]: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334881120920498180