We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google • Hacker News Board

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#441

Post by Wowfunhappy » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

jpm_sd wrote: post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

I'm less cynical about this as a concept.

Would you feel differently if, say, Apple hired a "Privacy Watchdog", with a long history of activism on the topic? Someone you could trust to speak out if something was amiss.

If the person is later fired, that's a sign that something is wrong at the company. But if they stay, and have generally good things to say, that's a sign the company can be trusted.

I do think this is a good system!

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#442

Post by christophilus » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #436

thinkingemote wrote: post #365

Anyone else see the narrative on Twitter to be so much different than Reddit and hacker news? On reddit and hacker news I have never seen any unconditional support for Timmit. Even amongst those anti Google and broadly in support of her, there's no whole agreement with all of what Timmit says; the assertion of her story, the reasons why and the conclusions. that a. She was fired b. That she was fired because of sexis…

> Why is this? Because there are lots of FAANG engineers in here (i.e. working at Google, or with friends working at Google, or working at companies who do the same nasty AI stuff as Google) so them unconditionally supporting Gebru on this would be against their direct financial interests. It's as simple as that.

HN strikes me as being pretty consistently anti-Google almost every time Google comes up, so I don’t think this is the reason.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#443

Post by andybak » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

ur-whale wrote: post #422

eecks wrote: post #410

AI ethics research is funny. It's obviously important but it's also kind of ... obvious. I am surprised they get paid so much. * Lots of processing uses more energy.. * Large amounts of data might contain bad data (garbage in, garbage out) * Wealthy countries/communities have the most 'content' online so less wealthy countries/communities will be unrepresented. here's some more: * AI being forced to chose between two…

>AI ethics research is funny. Calling "AI ethics" research makes it feel like it's actual science. It's in practice much closer to "social science" than actual science. And just like "social science" it isn't funny at all but rather a giant hoax.

As much as I agree social "science" is often flawed, your flippant dismissal of an entire field with an extensive pedigree strikes me as unlikely to come from a place of knowledge and familiarity.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#444

Post by nathanlied » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

jpm_sd wrote: post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

Agreed; but this isn't just a Google problem. Seems to me like a lot of SF (and SF-inspired) "big tech" wants to be known for their "wokeness"[1], which leads to hires like Timnit and other "politically-outspoken" people, which in turn leads to situations like this, James Damore, and other individuals/situations that amount to workplace political activism.

I am wholly uncomfortable with any discussion of politics in a workplace environment like a mailing list. I am more than fine with employees choosing to associate politically outside the workplace and workplace spaces, no matter how radical I find their views. This is in itself political - it supports the status quo - but anything else is inviting dissent and combativeness, and situations like these will keep happening.

That said, I've not seen the email outlining her conditions "or else", but I feel I'd have very much taken the same stance as you, given the surrounding coverage of what was in that email. Ultimatums to your employer don't often go well. And perhaps this is a good thing for her, because she may leave for a place that better suits her.

-

[1] my derisive use of this term does not stem from actual efforts at inclusiveness, those are good, but from surface-level attempts at it that end up feeling performative, at best.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#445

Post by ionwake » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

qsort wrote: post #428

eecks wrote: post #410

AI ethics research is funny. It's obviously important but it's also kind of ... obvious. I am surprised they get paid so much. * Lots of processing uses more energy.. * Large amounts of data might contain bad data (garbage in, garbage out) * Wealthy countries/communities have the most 'content' online so less wealthy countries/communities will be unrepresented. here's some more: * AI being forced to chose between two…

Playing the devil's advocate here, I'm with you that half of AI ethics is obvious and the other half is wrong, but is't it the goal of the field to try and give meaning to things that aren't obviously well defined? To make an example that's en vogue right now, AI explainability. Nobody even has a definition of what it means for a model to be explainable (is a linear regression "more explainable" than ML? isn't Google…

Sorry to ask, but I don't understand the points you are making. Could you please elaborate on them? I had trouble with the last 2 paragraphs. Thanks

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#446

Post by tomp » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #329

tomp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your “social justice” cause(s) would be much better served if you didn’t make up problems where there are none (what’s the issue with “globalist”??) and didn’t project ill intent where there is none (the soap dispenser wasn’t “racist”, it was just “bad”). It’s just basic intellectual honesty, sorely missing in the SJW circles.

The soap dispenser clearly didn’t have racist thoughts. But it effectively worked worse for black people, so it has racially discriminatory effects. I don’t think there’s much to argue about here. Also, I believe it’s best not to accuse your interlocutor of lacking intellectual honesty unless the evidence is very clear. Perhaps they just see the world differently to you.

algorithm is biased => we should fix it is reasonable, but also a misrepresentation of the argument that this whole thread is about, which is more along the lines of algorithm is biased => researchers are racist => the company that employs them is racist => the whole country is racist which definitely is driven more by ideology than reason.

I’m happy about people viewing the world differently and having an honest, good-faith discussion about the issues. But I’ll criticise intellectually dishonest arguments, like the moat-and-bailey you just pulled here.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#447

Post by tinyhouse » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #397

tinyhouse wrote: post #377

Last comment about it since I spent too much time on this story. As a researcher in the field I feel bad people don't give Google more credit (I have no affiliation with Google). They created a research environment where researchers have freedom to work on their own interests and publish papers (they publish more than any other company). You don't find many environments like that outside of academia. I still remember…

What? People should check their principles at the door? They literally hired an ethics researcher and then it appears they fired her unethically.

Did I say people should check their principles at the door? It's a large research org within a large company. Obv it's not all perfect. I'm sure it has some inefficiencies, politics, etc. It's a company after all and people who accept their offer should know they are going to lose some freedom. But it's still one of the best environments for researchers outside of academia. Google should get some credit for that. Not to mention they get paid extremely well. Researchers in other fields can only dream of such opportunities. Also, it is your opinion it was unethical. I'm sure there's a lot to this story Google cannot share. Nothing in this story to me makes Google Research a place I wouldn't want to be part of.

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#448

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #440

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's OK to assume that Jeff Dean cannot understand certain things because of his ethnicity, is it also OK to assume that people of other ethnicities cannot do or understand certain things? Is this the kind of culture we should be encouraging?

> other ethnicities cannot do or understand certain things? I I don't think that those ethnicities have been in the same position of power as the one represented by Dean, so your point is moot.

[deleted]

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#449

Post by ghaff » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #441

jpm_sd wrote: post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

I'm less cynical about this as a concept. Would you feel differently if, say, Apple hired a "Privacy Watchdog", with a long history of activism on the topic? Someone you could trust to speak out if something was amiss. If the person is later fired, that's a sign that something is wrong at the company. But if they stay , and have generally good things to say, that's a sign the company can be trusted. I do think this i…

It's a difficult type of role. See the NYT getting rid of its public editor/ombudsman.[1] I'd actually have trouble seeing Apple hiring someone like that given how tightly they control external messaging/speaking/etc.

It's really hard for execs, including but not limited to PR, to have worked really hard on getting some message/narrative accepted by the media/analysts/etc. and then have a high profile employee on social media or in a major publication saying it's sort of B.S. even as an occasional thing.

ADDED: It doesn't make it "right" for them to storm into their boss' office and demand said person be fired but it is at least an understandable human reaction. I think anyone who takes that kind of role has to understand they'll be a lightning rod, feel passionate about it anyway, and understand they may well eventually set off a tripwire and be fired in a very public and humiliating way.

[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-new-york-times-fired-i...

Re: We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google

#450

Post by DangerousPie » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

jpm_sd wrote: post #391

Here's why I have absolutely no sympathy for Google in this situation. They hired Gebru as a professional thorn in their side. "Come up in here and be a pain in the ass! Tell us what we're doing wrong!", they said. "We're Enlightened Corporate America, after all!" She is a chess piece in the game of Wokeness Street Cred. She then proceeded to do the job she was hired for, and now they're all "Hey lady, Here At Google…

I agree with this in part, but I think there is a difference between "tell us what we're doing wrong" and "send emails to mailing lists telling our employees to lobby congress against us". Plus the whole setting an ultimatum thing.