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

More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 266 posts

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#191

Post by xiphias2 »

true_religion wrote: post #124
gfodor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Facebook “walkout” was a particularly hilarious example of this when you consider the second step of the walkout: walking back in.

If you look at trade unions, you see that walkouts, work slow downs and temporary strikes are commonly used. The goal is never to destroy the company but to simply force them to the bargaining table by reminding them of the economic power workers provide. A total strike or worse a union quitting a company all together is a nuclear option.

It may work with physical work, but at FANG companies software engineers will just make up for it on the weekends at nights. Stack ranking works wonderfully at making engineers to compete in working as much as they can (which is not a bad thing, just how the system works).

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#192

Post by Aunche »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #44
muglug wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, that’s exactly the sort of paper one might expect to be written by someone whose job title includes the words “ethics” and “AI”. I’m not sure what Google expected.

What stood out to you?

The whole paper doesn't go beyond surface-level analysis. The main point is that language models reflect the same biases as its training data. Very little of it is technical. Most of it is about examples of how language models aren't as politically correct as the authors want it to be (e.g. calling female doctors "female doctors" when it's not relevant to the context). It's a legitimate concern, but anyone who remembered Microsoft Tay would know that.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#193

Post by true_religion »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #177
true_religion wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is she really a manager? In factories the foreman was considered part of the Union rank and file. PMs and other developer leadership could be integrated into a union. Basically if you can be promoted up into a position it can be a union job. If you need a business degree to do it though then it’s non union.

I don't know exactly what her job responsibilities were, but it's not the case as a rule that any position you can be promoted to is a union job. Anyone who has independent authority to "hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action" is by law a superviso…

If they can only do it for specific purposes and their actions are reviewed then it’s possible they could gain union memberships.

For example foremen hire, train, supervise and evaluate workers. Yet they have a union.

I can’t say for certain if it’s a protected union but it is a large and existent one in the US.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#194

Post by [deleted] »

pen2l wrote: post #166
pydry wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your job is an ethicist, your company hires you to demonstrate that they are ethical. If they truly aren't then you either have to sacrifice your integrity or kick up a fuss. Additionally once her integrity is lost she loses market value. Her market (whitewashing/signaling of ethical behavior of a large company) is an odd one but she behaved it the most rational manner given the circumstances. Moreover by kicking…

I agree with all of this, except you miss that she started playing those ultimatum games with her boss, this particular act, let’s be real, is something that gets you fired from most places. There would be a lot of merit to what you’re saying and a lot more sympathy for this woman if she hadn’t made these missteps.

[deleted]

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#195

Post by zartar »

pydry wrote: post #79
zartar wrote: post #26

I find the semi-regular condemnations from employees of big tech companies hollow. If you work for one of these companies and find their behavior unsavory, go work somewhere else - this is actually what might cause executives at these companies to reflect on how they might change course. The fact that most of these employees could easily get well paying (just not as _ridiculously well paying_) jobs elsewhere to me fe…

If your job is an ethicist, your company hires you to demonstrate that they are ethical. If they truly aren't then you either have to sacrifice your integrity or kick up a fuss. Additionally once her integrity is lost she loses market value. Her market (whitewashing/signaling of ethical behavior of a large company) is an odd one but she behaved it the most rational manner given the circumstances. Moreover by kicking…

My comment was about the 1200 workers who condemned the firing.

There have been similar recent public statements such as MS workers about use of AI for the pentagon, FB employees on content, etc..

Simply I mean the best way to support a wrongfully ousted ethicist would be to leave yourself, rather than keep getting paid by the execs who wronged her.

The work of AI ethics - especially in the vein of Timnit Gebru - is essential. My statement, was one of support for her.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#196

Post by pmoriarty »

pen2l wrote: post #166
pydry wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your job is an ethicist, your company hires you to demonstrate that they are ethical. If they truly aren't then you either have to sacrifice your integrity or kick up a fuss. Additionally once her integrity is lost she loses market value. Her market (whitewashing/signaling of ethical behavior of a large company) is an odd one but she behaved it the most rational manner given the circumstances. Moreover by kicking…

I agree with all of this, except you miss that she started playing those ultimatum games with her boss, this particular act, let’s be real, is something that gets you fired from most places. There would be a lot of merit to what you’re saying and a lot more sympathy for this woman if she hadn’t made these missteps.

"she started playing those ultimatum games with her boss"

Is it a game or is it just a negotiation?

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#197

Post by miked85 »

jlokier wrote: post #184
miked85 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I was replying to the first sentence.

Then you are still mistaken. Once you resign you do indeed quit. But when you say you are going to resign at a future date, especially when you say you are going to resign at a future date only if certain conditions occur but will not resign if they don't... then you haven't resigned yet. That's not special to employments. Similar applies to contracts in general, where a party tells the other party that at some futur…

> But when you say you are going to resign at a future date, especially when you say you are going to resign at a future date only if certain conditions occur but will not resign if they don't... then you haven't resigned yet

Maybe if you want to play semantics, sure. In the eyes of the employer though, you have effectively resigned.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#198

Post by pmoriarty »

h_anna_h wrote: post #155
brayhite wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bad-faith, shallow take. Ascribing the act of bringing awareness to “participation trophies” is nonsense. I also disagree with the parent. Bringing change is almost always easiest from within. “Don’t like it? Leave.” stances aim to do more to attack the person involved than it does to take a critical look at whatever problem it is that’s being discussed.

It is not "don't like it? leave.", it is "stop working for immoral organizations". Would you consider a guard of a concentration camp ethical if they "condemned" the actions of the government but continued to support them via their work? I wouldn't.

The fact that they're working at Google in the first place shows they're not that ethical to begin with.

But nearly everyone has limits, and the petition signing limit was reached for these 1200 Google employees.

We'll see if the quitting limit is ever reached for any of them.

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#199

Post by Arech »

telltruth wrote: post #103
miked85 wrote: post #13

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired. At that point she was on her way out, one way or another; most employers would rather not work with people like this.

Initially I took Google's side given Gebru has history of bullying so aggressively and has no qualms to play race/gender cards at every opportunity she gets. But now that more details (including the paper in question) has been revealed, it's hard to stay on Google's side. It is clear that the peer review process that Jeff Dean had described has been optional for all intent and purpose. It says along similar lines tha…

I haven't seen much by myself, but I witnessed that flame with Y.LeCunn and that alone gave a lot of information.

I can't understand WHY so many people obviously think that it is totally fine to be behave utterly unethical, especially when a person whose behaviour is in question is "professional ethics researcher". Looks like they think that a big goal justifies the means. Welcome to Russia circa 1917, or Germany of 193x.

Insanity((

Re: More than 1,200 Google workers condemn firing of AI scientist Timnit Gebru

#200

Post by true_religion »

xiphias2 wrote: post #191
true_religion wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at trade unions, you see that walkouts, work slow downs and temporary strikes are commonly used. The goal is never to destroy the company but to simply force them to the bargaining table by reminding them of the economic power workers provide. A total strike or worse a union quitting a company all together is a nuclear option.

It may work with physical work, but at FANG companies software engineers will just make up for it on the weekends at nights. Stack ranking works wonderfully at making engineers to compete in working as much as they can (which is not a bad thing, just how the system works).

All that stuff sounds like systematic abuses that a union would reduce.

The problem of the effectiveness of Facebook employee walkouts stems from the fact that they aren’t a real union, so the employer can just force them to make it up without providing for any additional compensation.

Any protest is a null option until the whole thing catalyzes and they form a union to address the repeated disregard the company shows them.

The only way for the company to avoid this is to self regulate or at least pay lip service to buy more time.

Post reply on HN