621–630 of 864 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png
Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that. This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense. I’m kidding of course... or am I?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is a "literal act of violence" to these people. Google is run by naive idealists who hire activists in droves and are then surprised to realize that those people are a bunch of unemployables.
Google, by virtue of its sheer influence in the industry, is primarily responsible for the activist-driven grief that has shat itself all over the tech industry in recent years. So fuck them. Watching the toxic crops they've planted and tended to go for their own creator's throats is nothing short of delightful.
this is a really sad point of view to have
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google and many of the other tech giants have played a big role in creating and indulging these activists - this is chickens coming home to roost.
I agree Google & "Big Tech" enables them. How does Big Tech create them, though? Universities seem to be filling that role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of these "AI ethics researchers" seem like wingnuts, and their profession appears to serve more of a PR purpose than a business purpose. What am I missing? Why are they so essential? Are these people the canaries in the coal mine, or do they simply exist because of paranoia and political correctness?
It's a bit of a tragedy to be honest. We/I lived through both developing social networking and big data, and it's pretty clear that the community made huge mistakes that both hurt loads of people and we can't really take back or clear up at this point. Bad things happened to innocent people. Bad people got power over good people and did bad things with it. AI has at least as much potential to be dangerous, ethical co…
“After conducting a review of this manager’s conduct, we confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our security policies, which included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” a Google spokesman said in a statement. This feels pretty cut and dry to me. Meg exported business material from the company. That a fire-abl…
It is possible that there are many employees who are committing "fire-able offenses" at many companies but because the companies are not trying to get rid of these employees, these offenses go undetected or no serious action is taken if they are discovered. That's life.
The question here is whether Google wanted this employee gone, and if so, why. It sounds like she was reading documents associated with the other employee on her team who was fired. We are not told of any actual damage that was caused.
The quoted statement in the top comment states "After conducting a review of this manager's conduct...". They have discretion over what they choose to do after the review. They wanted this employee gone. Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot I sometimes don't agree with decisions my (present and past) employers have made. But I'd never go to the media or public forums with those disagreements. If I thought it was so important that I had to do that, I'd resign first. I strenuously avoid making any public comment about my current employe…
I'm curious, what will Mitchell's and Gebru's career prospects be from now on? After badmouthing their employer publicly, sharing internal communication, I just don't see who in their right minds would hire them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would anyone suspect that an AI set her up? One could be fully capable of that. This whole thing may be ironic- in more than one sense. I’m kidding of course... or am I?
It is disappointing that this message is being downvoted.
Very Roko's basilisk.
Especially if it’s being downvoted by the AI.
You will learn a lot about Margaret Mitchell's firing by simply reading this piece she shared publicly on Twitter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO... A few punchlines: "Every moment where Jeff Dean and Megan Kacholia do not take responsibility for their actions is another moment where the company as a whole stands by silently as if to intentionally send the horrifying message that Dr. Geb…
The whole piece of so amazingly self-entitled. > Dr. Gebru refused to subjugate herself to a system Like working at a gigantic publicly traded US corporation? > belittle her integrity as a researcher and degrade herself below her fellow researchers Funny way of phrasing "paper wasn't good enough yet to pass peer review." > let those of us in positions of privilege and power come to terms with the discomfort of being…
To me the story is that it turns out when you fire a fairly accomplished ethicist in a way that people perceive as unethically, a bunch of ethicists they work with don’t take it well - and in this case it looks like they went pretty extreme on it.
My general impression of this entire thing, starting with Gebru being fired, is that the department should have never been named "ethical AI" anything. It's research into social stuff. How AI interacts with things like faces and how that gets biased by a lot of social issues, like racism and existing class stratification related to race (among other things). These are things that can have "ethical" implications but w…
>I put this picture of a burning house into a image classifier running on my computer and it returned "beautiful" and that sent chills down my spine
These don't strike me as particularly valuable insights, does she have an interesting body of work somewhere?