Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#51

Post by iainmerrick »

alisonkisk wrote: post #23
shkkmo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone says "if you don't fix this thing I will look for work elsewhere" that doesn't mean that you can say "I accept your resignation." If you want that person gone immediately, you have to fire them.

It's fuzzy. If someone in a heated dispute says, "I resign, effective some time in the next month", what do you do? Keep them on until you agree in a date? Even if they give a date like "Dec 31", do you let them keep all their access to sensitive company data, or you lock them out for security's sake and settle the legal and payroll paperwork separately?

Easy -- if the contract has a notice period, they go on “gardening leave”. It’s common for this to be specifically covered in contracts.

If there’s no notice period (legal only in “at will” states, I believe) then it would seem reasonable to fire them immediately.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#52

Post by motoboi »

kd913 wrote: post #12

It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?

Because she is was an ethicist in google, an AI company. People are very afraid that google fired her because they don't care about bias and unethical use in AI.

So, for us that care about google's use of AI and ethical use of it, it's important to understand what happened.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#53

Post by worker767424 »

brandmeyer wrote: post #32
KittenInABox wrote: post #14

Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work difficulties are sexism or racism. But I'm now finding that the procedure claimed actually essentially doesn't exist or if it did it was never enforced until now. What is going on? If this was an issue of the researcher unprofessionally airing her frustration…

The reality is that none of us have any idea what's going on. There's a bunch of employee-said/employer-said going on, with leaks to the press and rants on Twitter, but nobody has the whole picture. Plenty of people are willing to make guesses based on the fragments they have combined with their own biases, though. Searching in HN under "Gebru" (the employee's last name) pulls up a bunch of past threads.

The other bit I'd add is Google will be silent externally for legal reasons, and not to read into that. The internal messaging was likely truthy and omitted things. Timnit Gebru also omitted some important things in her twitter posts.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#54

Post by ekms »

kd913 wrote: post #12

It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?

Yeah... there've been something like 5 top posts on hn in the past week about this incident. It's ridiculous

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#55

Post by morelisp »

SullyGoober wrote: post #48
KittenInABox wrote: post #14

Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work difficulties are sexism or racism. But I'm now finding that the procedure claimed actually essentially doesn't exist or if it did it was never enforced until now. What is going on? If this was an issue of the researcher unprofessionally airing her frustration…

It depends on who you ask: 1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up. 2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to…

> This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism.

Sounds like a perfect fit for Google's new Chief Legal Officer. Or maybe SVP Social!

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#56

Post by ohwaitnvm »

BeetleB wrote: post #36
shkkmo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legally speaking, that is not true at all. Edit: if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired.

> if you say "I don't want to work here anymore." And you get your "resignation date moved up" you still get your unemployment benefits because you were fired. I can't speak for California, but in my state, if you are fired and not laid off[1], you don't get unemployment benefits. I've anecdotally heard this is also the case in California. However, I've also heard that many tech companies state they will not dispute…

I think there is a term in California - fired “with cause” - but I’m not sure if that has bearing on unemployment eligibility.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#57

Post by kd913 »

morelisp wrote: post #42
kd913 wrote: post #12

It disturbs me how much of a news story this is. This should be handled internally and not aired in public across several media sites. Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG and some random individual?

> Why should I care about the dirty laundry of FAANG FAANG employs a tremendous number of technology workers, are key drivers the industry-wide technical agenda formally (standards bodies) and informally (open source project management, areas of active research), are often the first line of serious education for new workers, and the fallback for workers when riskier undertakings fail. If anything far more of their in…

If we were talking about Linus Torvalds, Jim Keller or Raja Koduri someone who is actually an industry driver then sure. These are individuals who have had considerable impact on a piece of technology whose names I can recognize for the tech they built.

I have no idea what or how this individual matters at all or the tech that she is relevant in. Not everyone at FAANG are industry leaders, and there are several cogs just like at IBM. I fail to see why I should care for every individual starling who can't stand out other than the company they work for.

This random individual along with James Damore and that random FB grad are not on the same level.

Your arguments tell me more that FAANG should be broken apart. Public attention and scrutiny would achieve nothing in affecting Google's decision making here.

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#58

Post by djeikyb »

KittenInABox wrote: post #14

Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work difficulties are sexism or racism. But I'm now finding that the procedure claimed actually essentially doesn't exist or if it did it was never enforced until now. What is going on? If this was an issue of the researcher unprofessionally airing her frustration…

Journalists got access to an early version of Gebru’s paper and reported on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#59

Post by okareaman »

There's was an incident a while back where 2 engineers were joking between themselves about a "big dongle" and the woman seated in the row ahead heard it, turn around, took their picture and posted it online. It ruined everyone's life including hers. I thought we learned from this that airing things publicly is fraught with danger. I imagine there is a time and place for it, but very carefully with intention.

https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...

Re: Google employees say AI researcher did not resign, despite what exec claims

#60

Post by ballenf »

zorpner wrote: post #41
BeetleB wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone says "if you don't fix this thing I will look for work elsewhere" that doesn't mean that you can say "I accept your resignation." I think you'll find from a legal standpoint, it does.[1] At least I know that they teach in negotiations courses that any time you make a counteroffer , the original offer is legally null and void. So if I give you an employment offer that is good for 30 days, and you counter…

> I think you'll find from a legal standpoint, it does. In fact, it specifically does not: https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf

In that case an employee gave a resignation date of 11/15. Employer cut off the employment two weeks early and court ruled that it shouldn't be considered a resignation, but instead a termination by employer.

What's the parallel between those facts and the dispute here? Just not seeing any applicable precedent.

Post reply on HN