Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher • Hacker News Board

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#311

Post by laretluval » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 12:43 AM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #91

actuator wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her spat against Yann LeCun felt very wrong to me. That is not how fellow academics/researchers should treat each other. Maybe Yann LeCun was wrong, the way she conveyed the message disregarding any knowledge he might have on this was definitely not civil. She could have chosen a different way to address the complaints here, not by getting overtly confrontational. Maybe the review group got it wrong, maybe they were…

> definitely not civil. I agree that people should try to be kind and charitable to each other, and this conversation didn't show that. That said, I think we also have to be cognizant of the way "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo. It might not have been very "civil" for instance when Google employees walked out of the offi…

> "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo.

In this case, the norm in question was respectful argumentation grounded in empirical evidence. Why does it matter that that norm belongs to a dominant majority?

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#312

Post by dvtrn » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 12:45 AM UTC

hintymad wrote: post #207

I'm curious why this is flagged. Isn't this topic about tech culture and dynamics in both tech companies and tech communities, which is legit per HN's guideline?

Comments got spicy. Several of them. Understandably so. It's nuanced; nuance seems to be not much of a favorable flavor around these types of discussions. Instead of hitting the "hide" button and moving on since it doesn't interest them, it would seem flaggers would rather see the conversation nuked entirely.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#313

Post by laretluval » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 12:47 AM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #153

akarma wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity... is acknowledged or valued in this company," she said in the email. "Stop writing your documents because it doesn't make a difference." This was the email she sent, as a manager at the company.

WOW what a misleading quote. Here's the full paragraph that that is from: > Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you…

The context is helpful; it shows that her claim is even more unjustified.

While it sounds difficult for her, I can't imagine how Google's behavior here amounts to not acknowledging someone's humanity.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#314

Post by thelock85 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #155

thelock85 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard to find a reputable tech firm or startup that has not been publicly or internally accused of breaking a rule, regulation or law. It's engrained in the ideology of innovation.

No. Innovation does not require law breaking. This is an opinion espoused by people who lack ethics. Tech firms and startups are just businesses. Breaking laws/regulations is not a requirement to operate a new business.

I think we are saying the same thing. Though I’ll add that are a lot of people in positions of power openly running with that opinion at their tech firms, and that does influence ideals around tech innovation.

Also running an ethical business goes far beyond adhering to rules and regulations, as many of them don’t currently penalize unethical practices.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#315

Post by RhysU » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #24

p49k wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numerator is such a small percentage because so many fear losing their jobs for speaking out. In that context, this number is quite significant. Even if you disagree with their stance, you have to admit that it takes courage to speak up in these kinds of situations.

This argument can be made about any unpopular subject. Americans really want full-blown Communism, but are too afraid of speaking out for fear of retaliation from jack-booted capitalist thugs. Prove me wrong.

You, sir or madam, aced rhetoric and current events. I applaud you. Science must always be falsifiable.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#316

Post by throwawaysea » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 7:24 AM UTC

temp667 wrote: post #135

Do google employees actually do work or just rallies, protests and walkouts. Seriously, google staff are walking out / protesting / rallying behind stuff every week. How can you afford to pay 120,000 folks who seem to be focused on being outraged, striking and walking out all the time. I participated in a walkout ONCE when I was much younger, over an issue that was pretty clean cut (this was before me too, things had…

It’s pretty much the same at all tech companies now - Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc. This is both because the companies are primarily located in far left cities but also because they are powerful institutions that committed extremist activists seek to take over and weaponize for their own causes.

For many, the way these employee activists operate is in fact very unhealthy and distracting. But with leaders often letting these disruptive activities and ignoring the fact that these activists aren’t actually doing work on paid company time, it feels to the majority that they have no psychological safety to speak up. And so they remain silent while a vocal aggressive minority takes over.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#317

Post by stickfigure » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 8:23 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #273

stickfigure wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "need" have to do with anything? If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved. Nobody pays out $90M for fun.

This is false. The $90M was optional, not contractual. Google did indeed choose to pay out this amount when it didn't have to. Some sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18023364/google-andy-rub... Also, take a step back and consider how there was a worldwide walkout of 10k+ employees. That wouldn't have happened if Google's hands were tied here a…

That NYT article says:

In settling on terms favorable to two of the men, Google protected its own interests. The company avoided messy and costly legal fights, and kept them from working for rivals as part of the separation agreements.

Real life isn't a melodrama. I suspect there's plenty of nuance here.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#318

Post by bzbz » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 10:49 AM UTC

dwaltrip wrote: post #301

jeffbee wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading down the names, it is indeed the usual woke people who are chronically enraged on corp. G+ and mailing lists and whatever. There's also the person who kept harassing me on corp chat about whether I had a non-binary gender identity. I am so completely done with woke bullshit in the workplace.

How hard is it to answer the question or tell them that you would rather not answer? It doesn't sound very difficult.

As easy as it is to reply to a salesperson’s email

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#319

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #317

CydeWeys wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. The $90M was optional, not contractual. Google did indeed choose to pay out this amount when it didn't have to. Some sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18023364/google-andy-rub... Also, take a step back and consider how there was a worldwide walkout of 10k+ employees. That wouldn't have happened if Google's hands were tied here a…

That NYT article says: In settling on terms favorable to two of the men, Google protected its own interests. The company avoided messy and costly legal fights, and kept them from working for rivals as part of the separation agreements. Real life isn't a melodrama. I suspect there's plenty of nuance here.

You claimed:

> If someone walks away with 8-digit sums, there were contracts involved

The NYT article is pretty unequivocal that that is false, even if you want to pull out quotes talking about different issues.

> paying them millions of dollars as they departed, even though it had no legal obligation to do so.

They had no legal obligation to pay the severance.

If you want to discuss a different reason to pay $90 million to someone fired for sexual harassment, fine.

But your original comment was unequivocally wrong, let's just recognize that.

Re: Google staff rally behind fired AI researcher

#320

Post by whimsicalism » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

laretluval wrote: post #311

whimsicalism wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> definitely not civil. I agree that people should try to be kind and charitable to each other, and this conversation didn't show that. That said, I think we also have to be cognizant of the way "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo. It might not have been very "civil" for instance when Google employees walked out of the offi…

> "civility" is not objective/neutral, often relies on codifying the norms of a dominant majority, and also preserves the status quo. In this case, the norm in question was respectful argumentation grounded in empirical evidence. Why does it matter that that norm belongs to a dominant majority?

> Why does it matter that that norm belongs to a dominant majority?

It matters

a. if the norm is actually universally applied - I find that this norm of respectful argumentation is not universally applied.

Remember: this is a twitter argument entirely unrelated to what Timnit is under discussion for now. Elon Musk and Linus have had unrelated arguments where they engaged in very offensive argumentation (calling their opponents pedophiles, telling them to kill themselves) without any evidence, yet I rarely see these issues brought up on unrelated issues about them. But for Timnit, it's a scarlet letter she has to bear.

b. I think we substantially underestimate how frustrating it might be to be a scientist of color where people are constantly discounting your expertise (because, yes, Timnit is an expert.) I'm sure seeing that same sentiment for the ith+1 time can evoke strong emotions and we are not necessarily seeing the context.

Regardless, maybe not an incredible look for Timnit but not super huge in the context of a large body of work.