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

Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 238 posts

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#211

Post by joshuamorton »

gwern wrote: post #193
joshuamorton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the paper received additional external peer review as part of the normal academic publishing process at FAccT. The internal special topics review process that wasn't formalized at the time but was pseudo-formalized later in response to this issue also supposedly allowed revision, but in practice this authors weren't given the opportunity to respond to the feedback, they were only give the option to rem…

Well OK then, but your point was that "the original version must have been acceptable because Googlers later cited the final version, gotcha!", and the more review and improvement it undergoes by whomever, the less sense your point makes.

You're correct that that claim doesn't make sense, but then it's not one I made.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#212

Post by andromeduck »

karpierz wrote: post #206
kettleballroll wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As those comments say, any googler can verify that the mentioned email threads exist. And someone would've spoken up if that was a lie.

And so someone did: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t...

It honestly depends on how generously you want to read it, as a one off outburst or pattern of behavior.

The thread in question has been leaked in full IIRC. You can judge for yourself if you do some digging.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#214

Post by brian_cloutier »

astrange wrote: post #205
brian_cloutier wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you've had an in-person conversation with someone who would identify as being a part of the AGI safety community. I've talked with several people and their arguments are a lot more sophisticated than an intuition that ML models would have human motivations. This post isn't written by somebody inside the community but he presumably has access to them and has had conversations with them which shape his beli…

Of course he's in the community; he's as far as I know the #1 representative of it to the common people. Some rationalist blogs are all about polycules, some are about being weirdly friendly to right-wing online communities like NRX, and some are about a modern religion they've invented around worshipping AI and effective altruism. He's more on the latter 2 of the 3. (Probably also what she was talking about with eug…

> some kind of anti-SSC hater community

There's one called sneerclub but there might be more.

> something called "AGI" that can only exist in their imagination

You're claiming it's impossible for non-humans to be smarter than humans?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#215

Post by brian_cloutier »

astrange wrote: post #208
brian_cloutier wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand your objection because it doesn't seem like a category error to talk about optimizers having goals. I think you would agree that thermostats have goals? They try to minimize the error between the desired and the actual temperature. And you would also agree that gradient descent has a goal? It tweaks parameters in the search for models which minimize error in the training set. The system per…

ML models in the current paradigm don't have goals nor do they exhibit behavior. They're files on a disk that if evaluated turn numbers into other numbers; they aren't even full computer programs because they have no side effects or control flow. It's the training program that generates them that contains all those things, and that only runs because humans are constantly fixing the Python script that runs it and then…

Everybody agrees that the current paradigm has no chance of developing a soul and eating anybody.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#216

Post by agentofoblivion »

faeriechangling wrote: post #191
Manuel_D wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure if you say to your manager "I quit" and stop showing up to work, regardless of what internet forms you fill out, it's a resignation. The fact that Gebru gave her resignation in the form of an ultimatum rather than whatever website form you're talking about is a pedantic point. "I resign if you don't do X." "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This is a resignation the way I understand it.

That’s not a resignation the way California understands it. If she said “I am resigning NOW unless you do X” that WOULD count as a resignation. Let’s think of a hypothetical. A student says “I’m going to quit eventually in order to attend classes” and the manager says “I accept your resignation, you are fired”. This generally seems more like a firing because somebody was going to resign, more than it seems like a res…

I get it. But that’s really dumb and why people hate lawyers. The intent is entirely clear in this case, and the rest is just legal jujitsu.

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#217

Post by astrange »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #214
astrange wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course he's in the community; he's as far as I know the #1 representative of it to the common people. Some rationalist blogs are all about polycules, some are about being weirdly friendly to right-wing online communities like NRX, and some are about a modern religion they've invented around worshipping AI and effective altruism. He's more on the latter 2 of the 3. (Probably also what she was talking about with eug…

> some kind of anti-SSC hater community There's one called sneerclub but there might be more. > something called "AGI" that can only exist in their imagination You're claiming it's impossible for non-humans to be smarter than humans?

> There's one called sneerclub but there might be more.

Sounds right. Seems like a waste of time, though I'd rather people read Gwern or Meaningness than SSC for their internet philosophers.

> You're claiming it's impossible for non-humans to be smarter than humans?

I'm claiming the only reason the AGI in their imagination is taking over the world is that they've imagined it's doing that.

Also, that me saying "no that won't happen" is a superior method of thinking about it to rationalist decision theory, because it's immune to Russell's teapots like this. Presumably, this can be disproven if I'm killed in a robot war.

I'm okay with an AGI existing insofar as it acts like humans already do, but think the unknown unknowns are going to prevent it from being real insofar as it acts less like any currently existing thing with a brain. i.e. I don't think they've defined "smarter" and are using it to mean "omnipotent".

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#218

Post by bitshiftfaced »

faeriechangling wrote: post #188
dehrmann wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised news outlets still report that Timnit Gebru was fired. It's at best disputed. This case looks much clearer; he was terminated with cause.

It’s not disputed by anything other than googles PR. By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired. It would be bias in googles favor to act as though she were not fired which is what any court would find. Sort of a “discuss the controversy” sort of thing over a very…

> By well established California law legal resignations include an end date, she did not ever specify an end date when threatening resignation, and thus she never legally resigned. She was thus fired.

What law is that?

Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. California is an at-will state, so she could quit at any time, and they could fire her at any time. When you make an ultimatum, you're saying you're ok with either outcome and are letting the other party decide. This is an outcome she was ok with, so what's the problem exactly?

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#219

Post by dehrmann »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #165
Manuel_D wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure if you say to your manager "I quit" and stop showing up to work, regardless of what internet forms you fill out, it's a resignation. The fact that Gebru gave her resignation in the form of an ultimatum rather than whatever website form you're talking about is a pedantic point. "I resign if you don't do X." "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This is a resignation the way I understand it.

> "I resign if you don't do X." > "We're not doing X, we accept your resignation." This approach from her managers can be criticized because it immediately closes the door on the possibility of her changing her mind and walking things back. However, it sounds like she was causing a lot of internal problems so perhaps they were already working to get rid of her. Accepting the implied resignation may have just been exp…

> the possibility of her changing her mind and walking things back.

The George Costanza scenario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW78swzn_Bs

Re: Google fires another AI researcher who reportedly challenged findings

#220

Post by chii »

21723 wrote: post #38
prepend wrote: post #5

I think this a challenge that seems pretty obvious as scientists working for for profit organizations that don’t have binding ethical frameworks aren’t really free to pursue truth. Just like you wouldn’t expect an Exxon staff scientist to be free to publish a paper independent of Exxon. I think that people who want to properly practice science should avoid working for corporations. Academia and government aren’t comp…

This. And if an AGI is built (unlikely in the next 100 years, IMO) by a for-profit corporation, we are dangerously, dangerously fucked.

a profit motive is at least very understandable, and somewhat controllable. I'd rather a for-profit motive, than some other non-financial motive for building AGI. Better the devil you know.
Post reply on HN