Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#291

Post by jldugger » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

zzackk wrote: post #199

whoknew1122 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that there isn't a 'Google Brain Men and Allies' affinity group. "Google Brain" does likely have its own general distro where standard work-related topics are discussed. At the hazard of becoming 'political' and triggering people, affinity groups are typically created for groups that have traditionally been underserved, marginalized, or have special considerations. As a cis male, I don't really see the…

Ahh I got it now. This is great answer and would make a lot of sense. The tech industry is very male-driven and plagued with a lot of issues, so I’d only imagine these groups as essential part of many employees survival / wellbeing. Also I’d argue that these are people issues and not US political issues.

> Also I’d argue that these are people issues and not US political issues.

Gender equality activism has been part of US politics since at least 1776: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/suffrage/abigail.htm (Abigail Adams advocating to the constitutional convention)

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#292

Post by hintymad » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

berdario wrote: post #276

hintymad wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling out racism does not make one a racist, for sure. Labeling anyone who disagrees with her a racist, without even a slightly plausible evidence, makes her a racist because all she can see is race. You're right that that's not the standard definition of racism. It's a fair game, though, as people like Gebru pretty much uses racism as a weapon however they like.

> Labeling anyone who disagrees with her a racist Which she doesn't. Most notably, people here have been raising concern about the discussion with Yann Lecun, but that was also just a civil, if tense, discussion. You're better off not twisting the meaning of words to favor your argument, though. It'll just create more problems down the line

Fair point. "Any" is too strong a word that invites just one counterexample to get debunked. I'd say "in many cases" then, as demonstrated in her Twitter stream and her email. The words like "white men"( such a vile and irrational perspective), "oppressors", "racists" show up often. Case in point, a professor who tells his/her student that the student's life was easy, even though the student had to sleep only four hours a day. Lack of empathy, sure. It's racism without other evidence? Are you kidding me?

And her paper was rejected and her immediate reaction is to demand the company to reveal the identity of every reviewer? Yeah, right.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#293

Post by describe24 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #285

timnit-drama wrote: post #15

The email she posted [1] makes it pretty clear that she sent an email with some demands/conditions (separate from the one "to Brain women and allies") and said that she would resign if they weren't met. Google said they wouldn't agree to them, accepted her threatened resignation, and told her it was effective immediately. Without knowing more context, it sounds like she tried to do some hardball negotiating by threat…

I have to say, this idea that we should assume the best of the large corporate entity to the detriment of the very real human person until "we know more context" strikes me as shockingly and painfully naive. Is the assumption here that Google is somehow better behaved than other corporations? I don't think there's any factual basis for such thinking. In my experience, corporations are laser focused on money, quarter-…

Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter.

She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. All those people don't put Google first. The hard truth is that she was probably extremely unpleasant to work with it (this is my reading of the above link and from what I've witnessed on Twitter) and they had just reached their limits. Not Google, but the people that had to work with her (I'm clearly not referring to her subordinates who are all apparently "indebted" to her which is a whole other issue onto itself). She comes across as very entitled and quite frankly, although I hate to say it as it's a bit of a cliche at this point, narcissistic.

These are all based on what I've been able to find online. I've never met her in person. I'm trying very hard to not see her negatively but it's also hard finding evidence that's she's not hostile to those that don't 100% accept and agree with her. I'm definitely open to seeing her in a different light if anyone wants to share links. However, just because you research ethics doesn't mean you practice what you preach nor that you're a saint who can do no wrong.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#294

Post by describe24 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

lowercase1 wrote: post #251

describe24 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody has set the bar that high. Many people are just expecting basic civility. We all have to deal with issues yet not everyone turns to being hostile at every beat. It's not a once off Tweet for her, I think more would be forgiving if that were the case

Half of the comments here are focused on the appropriateness of an email after things had already become beyond repair. It's way, way less important than Google potentially preventing publication of damaging research. It's a bad sign from Google that this is their argument. If they were good on diversity/ethical ai they'd fight on that not on tone. If the facts are bad fight on tone, etc

I think a number of people have mentioned it but I don't think Google let her go because of either her email or paper. Her email alludes to there being tensions already present between her and her superiors for at least a year. It sounds like they may have already tried to have let her go. However, legally, they could not.

This latest event gave them an opportunity, since, she essentially gave them an ultimatum. Perhaps after last year's legal success she felt she would have the upper-hand and didn't expect them to actually decline her conditions.

Honestly, the focus on the paper is coming more from her and her supporters trying to spin it (although I'm sure many truly believe it) to make it sound like she was fired for trying to uncover ethical flaws at Google. When in reality, it sounds like she was difficult to work with and burnt a lot of bridges

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#295

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 10:56 PM UTC

describe24 wrote: post #293

cmiles74 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, this idea that we should assume the best of the large corporate entity to the detriment of the very real human person until "we know more context" strikes me as shockingly and painfully naive. Is the assumption here that Google is somehow better behaved than other corporations? I don't think there's any factual basis for such thinking. In my experience, corporations are laser focused on money, quarter-…

Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter. She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her res…

[deleted]

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#296

Post by x0x0 » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 11:18 PM UTC

cmiles74 wrote: post #286

telltruth wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand, she first sent out mass email to large group of employees that outright violated Google's policy. This act alone was sufficient for immediate termination. However, she then tried to bargain with her manager. Her manager basically let her know that bargaining was irrelevant and her action was serious enough that she is being terminated immediately. Then she comes back and tells the story with twist th…

Could you outline what content in the email as an "outright violation of Google's policy"? Having read the email, it did not strike me as a fire-able offense.

Couple things

> Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized?

Taking a dispute with your management chain re: feedback that said management chain felt they had to take actions like a private, hr-involved feedback session, and broadcasting that dispute to a mailing list of peers, downlevels, etc.

> But now there’s an additional layer saying any privileged person can decide that they don’t want your paper out with zero conversation.

This was, from the perspective of google management, probably very much not a reasonable characterization of the aforementioned circumstances. Managers represent the company, including publicly. Timnit was obviously in an awkward position where she seems to have been a player coach, ie a manager also doing IC level work (in this case, research). It feels like she expected her actions as an IC not to be viewed as actions that also came from a manager. That's a very hard dual role to have.

Third, maybe shouldn't get you fired in a perfect world, but prolly will in ours:

Public internal criticism of DEI efforts on the part of your management chain. Imagine how that reads to a line-level employee at Google. Particularly an URM.

Fourth, same vein -- auguring on an internal mailing list to get the CBC to criticize your employer

> I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is the entity that started forcing tech companies to report their diversity numbers

I'm only paying attention because I'm curious if Timnit was hired to -- if you will excuse the phrase -- whitewash google's policies, and she didn't understand what Google was buying; or if there genuinely was some conflict here. I suspect both from different players in the executive ranks.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#297

Post by kthxbye123 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:24 AM UTC

thu2111 wrote: post #165

rafram wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at Google women are virtually unfireable, black women doubly so. Huge, HUGE [citation needed].

What do you expect me to cite to show that? I worked there and saw it for myself. That's the citation. But really, do you doubt it? It's a company that talks constantly about how hard it tries to boost the number of women and blacks working there. Firing them works against that goal.

On a scale of 1 - 10, how angry do you get at the thought of a black person arguing with you? You can be honest. How hard does it get your forehead vein throbbing? What if she's also a woman? I'm betting the very thought makes you turn tomato red.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#298

Post by mamaduck11 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 5:32 AM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #181

whoknew1122 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty common in large corporations to have 'affinity groups', which discuss topics that affect the group. I don't work at Google; I work at Amazon. I can only speak about my experience, but it's likely the same at Google. You don't have to be a part of an affinity group to be a member of the mailing list (that's where the ..and Allies portion comes into play). The 'Google Brain Women and Allies' mailing list is…

Must be a US specific thing as I do not see this in EU corporations. I assume there is also a 'Google Brain Men and Allies'? Why not just a 'Google Brain and Allies'? Or does that also exist?

In the US, men aren't considered marginalized, and therefore having Male, White, or Straight affinity groups is frowned upon. They are often seen as opposition to Gender/Racial justice movements. People who bring up these issues are often labeled fragile or racist.

In my opinion, this leads to division and contempt/hatred for the other group. I live in a super progressive US state, and the university near me got a lot of backlash for hosting White affinity groups.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#299

Post by thu2111 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

kthxbye123 wrote: post #297

thu2111 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect me to cite to show that? I worked there and saw it for myself. That's the citation. But really, do you doubt it? It's a company that talks constantly about how hard it tries to boost the number of women and blacks working there. Firing them works against that goal.

On a scale of 1 - 10, how angry do you get at the thought of a black person arguing with you? You can be honest. How hard does it get your forehead vein throbbing? What if she's also a woman? I'm betting the very thought makes you turn tomato red.

Ah yes, the classic "if you're against affirmative action you're a racist" line. Knock it off. I'm the opposite of racist: the thought of arguing with a black woman doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'll happily argue with anyone.

The racism here is in the behaviour of treating some people specially because they are of "wanted" races or genders. I'm criticising racism, not engaging in it. But clearly a lot of people especially in the US are so far gone they'll never recognise it.

Re: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google

#300

Post by tjalfi » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

ramblerman wrote: post #189

berdario wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Redacted, since I don't want to fuel speculation] It always was (also) about race/gender! That said, I don't know Timnit, and I don't know her specific circumstances... I believe that Google is full of people who wants to solve these problems, but somehow leadership fails to capitalize on that. It might only be a few bad apples in the leadership, but each one wields a huge amount of power (hiring and firing people).…

> diversity OKRs These really exist? How do you know when you've reached perfect diversity? I'm honestly curious. Is it based on population distributions? What would be an example diversity OKR

Diversity requirements are a common practice for large law firms.

Many Amlaw 500 firms have agreed to the Mansfield rule[0].

> Now in its third iteration, the Mansfield Rule Certification measures whether law firms have affirmatively considered at least 30 percent women, attorneys of color, LGBTQ+ and lawyers with disabilities for leadership and governance roles, equity partner promotions, formal client pitch opportunities, and senior lateral positions.

Mansfield rule certification is independently audited on a biannual basis.

It's also common for clients to have their own diversity requirements[1].

[0] https://www.diversitylab.com/pilot-projects/mansfield-rule-3...

[1] https://www.diversitylab.com/knowledge-sharing/clients-push-...