41–50 of 926 posts
If I understand the document correctly, she wants HR to be biased against hiring "privileged" people (I think that means white, possibly male too, not sure) and wants to get politicians to force the company to report to create pressure for the same.
I feel the title is a little misleading. "withering email" == "anger-fueled message sent by a manager to a large group that asks readers to ignore company policy and start arguments with other leaders" I don't see where "ethical AI researcher" comes into play here. Instead, I see a leader at a company unprofessionally sending messages to a large listserv and is later fired. What am I missing?
Chief AI Scientist at Facebook, Yann Lecun, quit Twitter after a back and forth with this particular AI researcher - https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter... >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 K…
Yann: “ML systems are biased when data is biased"
Timnit: “I’m sick of this framing. Tired of it. Many people have tried to explain, many scholars. Listen to us. You can’t just reduce harms caused by ML to dataset bias. Even amidst of world wide protests people don’t hear our voices and try to learn from us, they assume they’re experts in everything. Let us lead her and you follow. Just listen. And learn from scholars like @ruha9 [Ruha Benjamin, Associate Professor of African American Studies at Princeton University]"
I don't like engaging this kind of discussion but have to call out the "I'm so tired" bit every time I see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which doesn't seem to be what was happening here though, or at least there's no indication to that effect. At the same time, the narrative that someone above her in the management hierarchy decided to pull her research seems more plausible. In that case, I would tend to "Privacy for the Weak, Transparency for the Powerful." What you describe is the former, but this would seem to be a case of the latter.
It's really hard to tell from this message what really happened. Why isn't it plausible that the paper in question was somehow upsetting to one of the dozens of people to whom the author circulated it? It reads to me like this person rejects the very idea that any criticism of their paper could possibly be legitimate.
First, for this to be a valid case of HR protecting someone who needs protecting, these complaints would have to come from someone who Gebru was managing and therefore have leverage on. I don't know the specifics, but it would stand to reason that she did manage some people, so that possibility can't be excluded for sure.
But from the last paragraph it seems that she did actually try to address the points raised:
> You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored.
I wasn't there, but simply not addressing counter points doesn't fare well in the public's (read: my) eyes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so unhelpful and dumb. The US has historically been one of the most racist and discriminatory organizations in North America. Does that mean we shouldn’t engage the US? Does that mean the US can’t be less racist? Does that mean the US isn’t a tool we can try to use to make the world a better place? Unions provide countervailing power to corporate power. Racist people are racist. Sometimes these can overlap.
Unions historically in America have been massive front organizations for mobsters and mafia. Check out the Teamsters - there are many many other examples. Does that make them racist? Of course not. But they have absolutely been discriminatory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Brotherhood_of_T...
https://newspunch.com/american-companies-nazi-germany/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
EDIT: to respond to comments below:
1. Union busting since the New Deal era resulted in one of the most oppressed working classes in the world. Hence, low union enrollment.
2. FDR saved capitalism. I'm not his biggest fan. I'm a socialist.
3. Serious money was offered during the business plot. It didn't come to fruition, but the danger was real. Corporations are the real power in America.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which doesn't seem to be what was happening here though, or at least there's no indication to that effect. At the same time, the narrative that someone above her in the management hierarchy decided to pull her research seems more plausible. In that case, I would tend to "Privacy for the Weak, Transparency for the Powerful." What you describe is the former, but this would seem to be a case of the latter.
It's really hard to tell from this message what really happened. Why isn't it plausible that the paper in question was somehow upsetting to one of the dozens of people to whom the author circulated it? It reads to me like this person rejects the very idea that any criticism of their paper could possibly be legitimate.
Wow. Outside of the issues discussed, this email was not what I would expect from senior manager. The language is all over the place. It is rambling. It is not unintelligible, but is far from an easy read. It seems like something dictated into a machine rather than something composed on a keyboard. If you are not confident in your use of language but still want to go out in a blaze of glory, make sure someone QCs you…
We should hire by skill alone whether the person is a Lesbian Black Female, or a White Male
Title here is misleading (probably deliberate). The email that got this person “fired” was one that allegedly contained an ultimatum and a threat to resign. The employer then called her bluff and accepted her resignation with immediate effect.
Corporations and their managers care only about making money and maintaining good vibes to produce a positive business environment. Only unions engaging in strikes and outside pressure can force them to change materially. All these internal committees and such are just PR. By the way, that part about unions and strikes also applies to the joined at the hip government as well.