521–530 of 926 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some refereeing processes are anonymous, and there can be good reasons for that, like preventing academic logrolling. It's standard in academia.
This is internal legal review, not academic peer review.
>> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in lan…
It would be great if this were true. But it isn't.
https://medium.com/@leej12255/the-threat-to-academic-freedom...
>> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in lan…
> if you are a researcher in academia you won't be asked to retract your research because it makes someone look bad. Not entirely accurate (worked in academia). If your research makes someone look bad or have a chance to jeopardize financing, usually you won't get a chance even to send the paper, because it will be shut down in your research center by either your mentor or other peers. Sound mentors are well connecte…
Actually, I really can't think of how my advisor would tell me not to publish a paper, except to suggest that it's not ready for publication.
But perhaps, as is often the case in these conversations, we're talking about different "academia"'s? I think there are differences between fields and between different countries' institutions in the same field etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that her willingness to assert her rights under the law should discredit her in any way.
Rattling your sabre about suing your employer is certainly a career-limiting decision.
Whether she was overly saber-rattling is, I think, not a meaningful discussion. "How could this ethicist have managed to keep her job" is a straightforward and uninteresting question: don't make any waves, don't challenge anyone too senior, make the company look good in public. "Does Google value talented AI ethicists who are genuinely committed to their work and are willing to sacrifice their career over it" is a much more interesting question.
Google found that there was a credible allegation that Andy Rubin raped another employee, and they figured out how to keep him around for years, until word got out, because he was valuable to the company. (And then they gave him a $90M exit package.) Timnit Gebru got fired while she was on vacation for simply being impolitic. That shows how much Google valued her work.
I don't think "fired" is the right choice of words -- she gave an ultimatum offering to resign, and they accepted her resignation. Is accepting a resignation the same as firing someone? > Thanks for making your conditions clear. We cannot agree to #1 and #2 as you are requesting. We respect your decision to leave Google as a result, and we are accepting your resignation. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364…
> However, we believe the end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects because certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager.
> As a result, we are accepting your resignation immediately, effective today. We will send your final paycheck to your address in Workday. When you return from your vacation, PeopleOps will reach out to you to coordinate the return of Google devices and assets.
Her resignation certainly gave Google an easy out of all that hassle, but would I call this a firing? Perhaps not.
If you're the employer you have to figure that if somebody's pissed off enough to (i) sue you whilst employed by you, (ii) write that kind of message to others working in their function or group, and (iii) now they've delivered an ultimatum you're unable or unwilling to meet, they're only going to cause more trouble if you make them work their notice period.
If it were me in her boss's position I'd have got her out the door as fast as possible.
>> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in lan…
> Because, as a rule, if you are a researcher in academia you won't be asked to retract your research because it makes someone look bad. It would be great if this were true. But it isn't. https://medium.com/@leej12255/the-threat-to-academic-freedom...
Mostly, I see in the article an attempt to engage in the usual online culture war, but I can't say what is reported in the article is making me concerned about academic freedom. To be honest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company This doesn't at all sound like the case. It sounds like the company did something aggressive, she got representation who threatened to sue, and the company backed off, and all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.
Sorry, dumb question, which part are you disputing? I must be being too literal. What you called out as "doesn't at all sound like the case": [1: they continued employing her for months and months] [2: while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company] First paragraph of the email OP posted, which I am defending as worth sharing: "This happened to me last year. [[1]: there has been 11+ months, or months and months,…
My reading is that the situation you're describing is resolved, and has been for quite a while. Thus no lawyer is currently threatening to sue, nor have they for quite a while.
Thus: an employee asserted her rights under the law in the past, and the situation was, apparently, resolved to everyone's pleasure. "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google" is a misrepresentation of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except she is the abuser.
She is accused of being an abuser. I think we've seen enough fake accusations of various kinds of abuse (i.e. crimes without proof, one person's word vs another's) in the past few years to know better.
EDIT: a bit more info from the NYTimes: "In an interview with The Times, Dr. Gebru said her exasperation stemmed from the company’s treatment of a research paper she had written with six other researchers, four of them at Google. The paper, also reviewed by The Times, pinpointed flaws in a new breed of language technology, including a system built by Google that underpins the company’s search engine." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company This doesn't at all sound like the case. It sounds like the company did something aggressive, she got representation who threatened to sue, and the company backed off, and all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.
Sorry, dumb question, which part are you disputing? I must be being too literal. What you called out as "doesn't at all sound like the case": [1: they continued employing her for months and months] [2: while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company] First paragraph of the email OP posted, which I am defending as worth sharing: "This happened to me last year. [[1]: there has been 11+ months, or months and months,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Y'all are alleging that it was phrased as an ultimatum. I'm not so sure that's the case. Proposing an option of resigning is not the same thing as "I will definitely resign".
> I'm not so sure that's the case. The person who benefits from your doubt, _and_ could resolve your doubt, chooses not to.
She cannot and will not expose that information without inviting all sorts of litigation. This is not a case where she can just "choose" to release that information.