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

91–100 of 179 posts

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

#91

Post by tb303 »

gerash wrote: post #25
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?

Obviously the individual who was let go loves the fame but I see most news website are pretty much looking for some sensational story to run mainly because doing more thorough analysis doesn't pay for itself. That's the problem.

Just a nudge from a stranger: Please take a moment to consider the extremely difficult position "the individual" may be in, the frustrations leading up to this, and the possible negative impact this has on their career that they had to weigh before naively thinking that they "love the fame." that's gamergate mentality in action and will work against you.

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

#92

Post by kd913 »

motoboi wrote: post #52
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.

Then surely the article focus should be described and focused on precisely the issues raised in the controversial paper no?

> She tweeted Wednesday that Google had abruptly fired her after a disagreement about a research paper that scrutinized possible bias in large-language AI models, which the company asked her to retract.

The article should be focusing on the disagreement here.

Instead the article focuses on employment which I don't care about.

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

#93

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

motoboi wrote: post #52
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.

> “ People are very afraid that google fired her because they don't care about bias and unethical use in AI.”

I have not heard anyone express this fear, certainly not in the AI community.

I have not seen any part of the Timnit Gebru incident that paints Google in a bad light or corroborates any type of inconsistency or unfair judgment.

Google has done plenty of that stuff in other situations, just not in any part of the handling of Timnit Gebru’s very inappropriate behavior.

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

#94

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

kd913 wrote: post #57
morelisp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm pretty sure you know the name Jeff Dean, who seems to have taken a personal role in this drama.

It's rather telling that your entire perspective is to demonize and diminish Gebru, who you don't even bother to name in your criticisms.

Why are you trying to establish some "level" distinction between Damore and Gebru. These aren't even remotely comparable situations.

Public attention and scrutiny is why we're talking about this, and have been, for a week now. It's pretty head in the sand to think this doesn't have impact.

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

#95

Post by sjg007 »

ballenf wrote: post #60
zorpner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah accepting a resignation effective immediately is a firing, especially when companies ask for 2 weeks notice.

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

#96

Post by lsiebert »

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…

Basically google (edit: I should say executives at Google, 1500 other googlers have signed a petition supporting her) wanted her to retract her (and 7 co-authors) ethics paper, wouldn't give her clear reasons or work with her on it, and then fired her when she objected to that and other ways it wasn't living up to it's commitments.

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

#97

Post by sjg007 »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #50
zorpner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

That’s about whether pay is owed. I’m certain that Google did not simply stop paying her checks, but told her to go home and that the remainder of her employment would be paid out. I suspect that’s enough for the law to agree that she was terminated voluntarily.

It's pay and also unemployment benefits if necessary.

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

#98

Post by pseudalopex »

ballenf wrote: post #60
zorpner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

She gave a date or implied she intended to. Google cut off her employment immediately.

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

#99

Post by kd913 »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #94
kd913 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm pretty sure you know the name Jeff Dean, who seems to have taken a personal role in this drama. It's rather telling that your entire perspective is to demonize and diminish Gebru, who you don't even bother to name in your criticisms. Why are you trying to establish some "level" distinction between Damore and Gebru. These aren't even remotely comparable situations. Public attention and scrutiny is why we're talkin…

I didn't know who Jeff Dean is, other than the fact that he is another AI researcher at Google. My work involves low-latency network drivers, not at all the field of AI.

Fine, there are AI stars too, but the article could lead about what they have done and why they are important no? A discussion involving Jim Keller would lead to his contributions to x86, Apple A10 series, Tesla chips and Zen.

I don't want a hand wavy discussion over ethics and AI, I want an explanation as to what they have contributed to the field that justifies why their opinion matters.

>Why are you trying to establish some "level" distinction between Damore and Gebru.

I am trying to establish that these random individuals don't matter to me. They are not known for their tech contributions but for the dirty laundry being exposed to the public.

These individuals from an external perspective seem to be known for being employed at Google and for some public controversy that cannot be influenced externally.

My point is why are these individuals in the news? Why should I care? They aren't industry leaders and from my perspective appear about as important as 'GE fires engine tester'.

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

#100

Post by microtherion »

apta wrote: post #71
oh_sigh wrote: post #5

Why would other employees be knowledgeable in the employment relationship between someone and a company? Unless the employees are in the direct management chain, or HR or something, aren't they just parroting what Timnit is claiming?

Exactly the case. Plus, I'd trust someone like Jeff Dean who is accomplished and does not have a history of crying racism and "microagressions" at the slightest beurocratic issue. There are already a couple of posts on reddit from ex-colleagues who explained what it was like working with people like her. People are tired of "woke"ness.

It’s easier not to complain about behavior if you’re the perpetrator, rather than the recipient, of the behavior.

I bet Jeffrey Dahmer didn’t have a history of complaining about cannibalism either, but that doesn’t necessarily make him the good guy.

Post reply on HN