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

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

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 460 posts

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

#201

Post by renewiltord »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, Google's ethical AI group sounds like the most toxic group of individuals I've ever heard of. I'm going to sidestep the debate about whether Gebru was "fired" or she "resigned", because that debate primarily centers on how one defines the words. But clearly she did do this: She sent a letter that made a bunch of (IMO) outrageous demands, outrageous because it essentially attacked other people at the company, and…

This is just how you behave: when faced with opposing pressure you roll over. That's fine, I do the same in some situations: I don't fight people who can cause me great damage like police or air stewards or immigration agents.

But rolling over all the time is not an optimal strategy. The more power you have, the rarer you should roll over.

And of course many without power will see those with power and say "In their place, I'd roll over". Yes, naturally. That's because you don't have any power. So being a pushover comes naturally to you, you've optimized well.

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

#202

Post by AntiImperialist »

pontus wrote: post #99

My god, people need to calm down. I understand that some may be upset about things their employer does and that's well within their rights. If their employer is knowingly engaging in illegal activity then by all means, be a whistle blower and set ultimatums, but this has gone too far. If you have a problem with the motivations of your employer or how it handles various sensitive issues then start preparing for interv…

>Norwegian wealth fund refuses to invest in because of ethical concerns

It's not ethical concerns. It's competition concerns veiled as ethical ones.

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

#203

Post by JPKab »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #133
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, Google's ethical AI group sounds like the most toxic group of individuals I've ever heard of. I'm going to sidestep the debate about whether Gebru was "fired" or she "resigned", because that debate primarily centers on how one defines the words. But clearly she did do this: She sent a letter that made a bunch of (IMO) outrageous demands, outrageous because it essentially attacked other people at the company, and…

I've noticed a trend where toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause, usually something related to social justice. It's effective and usually short circuits the public's willingness to see the nuance of the issue.

"toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause"

Anyone who has grown up around religious fundamentalists like I did learns this at a very young age. Frustratingly, when you grow up around that, you recognize the behavioral pattern very quickly, but the upper-middle class, suburban raised people with two college educated parents that make up the bulk of software engineers at the FAANGs don't, and therefore think these people are ACTUALLY virtuous.

I committed the grave sin of asking a wealthy woman (who happened to be black and who has done incredibly well in tech but complains constantly on twitter about the horrendous obstacles she faced despite being in executive positions with zero coding experience) how we could measure improvements and evaluate progress in companies with numbers, and was told that "this is a moment where you need to shut up and #listenToBlackWomen". By relying entirely on anecdotes and disallowing interrogation of her theories against data without being attacked as immoral, she has prevented any quantifiable way of evaluating progress or even recognizing companies that have done well. This tactic of ignoring facts by simply engaging in ad hominem attacks on a questioners morality, she mimics the tactics that were used against me when I dared suggest in Sunday school that dinosaurs existed billions of years ago, and humans were long after.

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

#204

Post by cbozeman »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #100
tomcam wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re 100% right. A job at a FAANG company isn’t a tenured position. Let her go get a job at Harvard and trash them all she wants.

We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. Yet when a woman of color does it, "oh they are their own company and can do what they want and it's her fault for trying to be ethical in this space in industry." What?? Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here.

You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethical issue with how Edward Snowden handled the revelation of mass illegal spying on the American people.

And I don't think anyone's disputing her desire to promote and encourage ethical implementations of AI technology. The crux of this issue is how you handle yourself, and it seems the more I read about how she handled these things, the more it seems like how children act.

"If I don't get my way, I'm quitting!"

Yeah, you get to sit atop your high horse and lord your morality over the rest of the mortals beneath you. You don't actually get to do shit, though, and you've actively lost the ability to control how this unfolds, at least at Google.

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

#205

Post by googlethrow3134 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #174
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, Google's ethical AI group sounds like the most toxic group of individuals I've ever heard of. I'm going to sidestep the debate about whether Gebru was "fired" or she "resigned", because that debate primarily centers on how one defines the words. But clearly she did do this: She sent a letter that made a bunch of (IMO) outrageous demands, outrageous because it essentially attacked other people at the company, and…

Secondarily, the level of management craft displayed by Google here has been awful . Both in hiring and creating such a situation, and in their inability to effectively defuse it. Probably not a primary cause, but contributory.

Google reaped what it sowed by hiring a toxic employee like Timnit whose had a history of tantrums on Twitter.

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

#206

Post by bonoboTP »

uh_uh wrote: post #136
tomcam wrote: post #24

I have contempt for a lot of the things that Google does, but I have a sincere question about all of this. Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? I would say the same about Peter Norvig or Guido van Rossum. If you ran the company, or the department, or owned your own firm where employees aired your dirty laundry like this, why should you be expected to keep them on?

Not only that, but she threatened Google with a lawsuit _before_ any of the current drama happened (excerpt from her email with regards to the recent firing/resignation): > I’m always amazed at how people can continue to do thing after thing like this and then turn around and ask me for some sort of extra DEI work or input. This happened to me last year. I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herlle…

Since when do people use "gaslighting" this way? She and colleagues seem to use it left and right on Twitter regarding all kinds of behaviors. I thought it had a quite specific meaning in the context of narcissist abusers intentionally making their victims doubt their own sanity.

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

#207

Post by scotth »

ergocoder wrote: post #54
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was, yes. Public statements she made before getting fired include: > A Black woman can't survive around here doing any type of research let alone research thats designed to make those in the majority uncomfortable. And guess who can apparently unilaterally order you to do things without even thinking you're someone they should converse with. ( https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1331757629996109824 ) > [The VPs…

While we are at it, she also called out Jeff Dean 6 months ago to have Jeff Dean say "personal attacks are not okay". https://twitter.com/JeffDean/status/1278571537776271360 The whole interaction is so cringey and screams toxicity.

To be clear, he wasn't saying that to her. He was weighing in on the "saga".

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

#208

Post by woah »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139
woah wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tried to prevent her from publishing a paper, which is outside of their normal practice, then dissembled about what happened (pretending internal reviewers are anonymous, for example)

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…

Google claims to be a place where academics can do research. Censoring a critical paper goes against that. I’m not a fan of Timnit, but in this case she is right to make a stink. It’s not like her job was to write ad copy.

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

#209

Post by googlethrow3134 »

woah wrote: post #125
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #117

Wow, Google's ethical AI group sounds like the most toxic group of individuals I've ever heard of. I'm going to sidestep the debate about whether Gebru was "fired" or she "resigned", because that debate primarily centers on how one defines the words. But clearly she did do this: She sent a letter that made a bunch of (IMO) outrageous demands, outrageous because it essentially attacked other people at the company, and…

Google tried to prevent her from publishing a paper, which is outside of their normal practice, then dissembled about what happened (pretending internal reviewers are anonymous, for example)

If she didn’t send an ultimatum threatening to resign, she would still be at Google.

The reality is that Timnit thrives on drama and attention. That’s how she remains relevant.

Look at the way she treated LeCunn, it’s no wonder that we’re in this current situation.

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

#210

Post by dekhn »

fatbird wrote: post #157
xenihn wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. What about the paper trail she left on Twitter?

That happened after she was fired. You can't cite that behaviour as a reason for firing her. Violates causality.

I went back and looked at Timnit's twitter history. She has a history of calling out her bosses and saying outrageous things, from well before this incident. People have linked, for example, a tweet where she called out Jeff Dean based on things he said in an internal meeting, and he had to do a bunch of apologizing and backtracking. I can't see how an employee can remain viable after doing that.
Post reply on HN