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

431–440 of 460 posts

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

#431

Post by ergocoder »

GVIrish wrote: post #362
ergocoder wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google then cut off her corporate access and terminated her employment immediately, ergo, firing. It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking. When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date. > If someone says, do this or I'll jump This is not a great analogy. I actually would go as far as saying people who use this analogy have malicious…

> It's also unreasonable that she will get to choose her leaving date at her own liking. When wanting to part way, either side has the full right to choose an earlier date. People choose their end date all the time. That's just standard. Sometimes the company moves a date up, sometimes the two parties negotiate a different date for some reason, sometimes people are fired. If it's an at-will employment state, both par…

> People choose their end date all the time.

That is absolutely false.

Either side has the full right to choose an earlier date.

You can choose an earlier date to leave. Company can also choose an earlier date for you to leave.

> If someone says "I'll quit" and the company disables their badge and security escorts them out, they've been fired

Do you expect to choose your exit date at your own liking at any date at your comfort?

We can agree to disagree.

Saying you're fired when you actually give the ultimatum seems dishonest. I thought Timnit was supposed to be a role model of high ethics.

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

#432

Post by ergocoder »

GVIrish wrote: post #357
crusso wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who just learned about this kerfuffle a few minutes ago, that doesn't make sense to claim that she was fired. If you offer to resign if new conditions of employment aren't met and the company accepts your resignation without honoring your exact terms of schedule, it sounds like you largely were responsible for terminating your own employment. Claiming that you were "immediately fired" as she tweeted just s…

If someone states I will do X if you don't do Y, it still comes down to the person choosing to take some action X. If you don't take action Y, it is still on the first person to choose to take action X. She may have intended to hand in her resignation, but she did not get the chance. She said if these conditions are not met, I will work with you on an end date. That's not what happened, she was terminated immediately…

Once both parties decide to part way, I don't think it's reasonable to think that you will get to choose the exit date at your own liking.

Either party can choose an earlier date, but not a later date.

I don't really care if she left or Google fired her. But framing it as Google is evil for firing her seems dishonest when she was the one who gave the ultimatum.

Google is evil, but not for this activity.

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

#433

Post by bonoboTP »

winston_smith wrote: post #428
bonoboTP wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the "Toxoplasma of rage" by Scott Alexander or watch the "This video will make you angry" by CGP Grey. No immediately reaching for maximum impactful tools will leave you behind and those who are not so "shy" to use strong words will advance and get more exposure. It's a memetic race. You get more attention for more outrage. Rewards and incentives shape what we see.

Unless we decide to consciously work against that tendency, which it's nice to see people doing in this thread.

HN is a special place with extreme focus on avoiding that fate, extreme alertness in moderation day to day, explicit anti-engagement features like cool off periods, no pictures and emojis etc. People who can stand staying on a mostly colorless pictureless site with no memes, are also self selecting to be a tad more thoughtful than social media people.

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

#434

Post by throwaway19937 »

ntsplnkv2 wrote: post #379
throwaway19937 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We praise whistleblowers left and right on HN, at the expense of objectivity (assange, snowden, et al), despite ethical issues with them. HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. > Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here. I'd be equally dismissive of any person…

> HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison. Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things. Those aren't why you're dismissive. You'…

> Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things.

These cases are completely different.

Snowden and Assange exposed a global surveillance network that many are opposed to. I think of Snowden as the Kim Philby of the 21st century but that's a different discussion.

Dr. Gebu disagreed with the peer reviews of a paper, threatened to resign, and Google accepted her resignation.

> Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country.

She may feel that her paper was rejected because the reviewers are racist; I think it's more likely that they disagreed with the quality of the work. There was probably an administrative screw-up with its submission, though.

Neither of us can prove anything. It's unlikely that all the facts will come out in any event; Google would settle the case if it went to court.

> I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change?

Have you read the email (https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...) that she sent? Would you expect to keep your job if you sent a similar email at work? Diversity is the third rail of modern companies - criticize or discourage it and you're gone.

> If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.

Anonymous peer reviews are a standard practice in industry and academia. If you demand the names of reviewers and threaten to resign if they aren't provided then don't be surprised if your employment ends.

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

#435

Post by sidlls »

shadowfox wrote: post #388
sidlls wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, we’re all rich racist WASPs, you got us. More seriously, it probably does indicate something about the political sentiment of users of HN who comment, which may indirectly indicate something about demographics. A direct link is tenuous.

> Yep, we’re all rich racist WASPs. Hmm. That was a strange, but interesting jump indeed. > A direct link is tenuous That could be.

It wasn't "strange" or a "jump". You explicitly state that focusing on business practices over (ethnic and/or gender) bias implies something about HN's demographics. My comment is literally (well, okay, it was exaggerated) what you wrote in your comment, but with different words.

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

#436

Post by commandlinefan »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #398
commandlinefan wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> toxic people hide behind a veneer of a righteous cause Motte and Bailey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

This is another good article on the M&B fallacy for those who are interested: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

SSC is actually where I learned about it myself. Shame he's stopped writing.

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

#437

Post by jgwil2 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #422
js8 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should they employ anyone who criticizes them that way in public? [..] 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? Because owning a company doesn't necessarily mean owning people working for it. Ask yourself the same question about the government, why should your government be expected to keep y…

I think your analogy is 180 degrees out of phase. The obvious difference is that the government works for us, and our CEO doesn’t. That’s why they agreed to part with a mutually agreeable sum of their cash - something they do not have to do. If one party fails in their obligations to make this transaction mutually beneficial, the rational counterparty will sever the relationship. And yes, we fire the government all t…

Ah, way to sneak some Hillary-bashing into a completely unrelated discussion. Friendly reminder that three million more people wanted to hire her than the other guy.

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

#438

Post by lawnchair_larry »

jgwil2 wrote: post #437
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your analogy is 180 degrees out of phase. The obvious difference is that the government works for us, and our CEO doesn’t. That’s why they agreed to part with a mutually agreeable sum of their cash - something they do not have to do. If one party fails in their obligations to make this transaction mutually beneficial, the rational counterparty will sever the relationship. And yes, we fire the government all t…

Ah, way to sneak some Hillary-bashing into a completely unrelated discussion. Friendly reminder that three million more people wanted to hire her than the other guy.

If your takeaway from that comment was Hillary bashing, you missed the point.

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

#439

Post by jgwil2 »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #438
jgwil2 wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, way to sneak some Hillary-bashing into a completely unrelated discussion. Friendly reminder that three million more people wanted to hire her than the other guy.

If your takeaway from that comment was Hillary bashing, you missed the point.

You undermined your own point because you couldn't help but bring up a partisan political point from five years ago completely unnecessarily.

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

#440

Post by throwaway19937 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #401
stronglikedan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She wasn't fired. She resigned, because of a her-way-or-the-highway mentality. FTA: In later tweets, Gebru clarified that no one at Google explicitly told her that she was fired. Rather, she said Google would not meet a number of her conditions for returning and accepted her resignation immediately because it felt that her email reflected "behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager."

She didn't offer to resign immediately.

That's true but irrelevant.

Google cut off her access and paid her through her notice period.

Post reply on HN