by akashshah87 on 12/9/20, 7:32 PM with 92 comments
by hpoe on 12/9/20, 11:25 PM
1 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit.
2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee.
I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless.
Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.
by almost_usual on 12/10/20, 7:12 AM
That seems like common sense.
by adjkant on 12/10/20, 6:33 AM
In context, it only makes sense. Google is not going to admit in a memo that they have a structural problem with either race or ethics, but it still is ever so slightly disappointing to see this treated more or less as an internal PR issue and not a moment to look in the mirror.
The real mismatch here is what people think the core issue is vs what Google thinks the core issue is. From the memo, Google seems to think that some processes or policies would have prevented this. What it seems to me is that the general public sees a misalignment / direct conflict of values between Gebru's work and points and Google's profit / business. I think Google knows this internally but can't say the quiet part out loud.
by totorovirus on 12/10/20, 6:45 AM
I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some other topics. And Gebru is doing exactly that in Google.
by Traster on 12/10/20, 12:15 PM
However, I think it's much more likely her toxic behaviour is a direct result of her being put into an extremely difficult position by her employer. Her job is to publish research on the ethics of the AI work that Google is doing. But by the sounds of it, Google want to block her from actually publishing anything critical. It would be one thing to say that her work was unsound, but that doesn't really seem to have happened. Instead there seems to be the classic corporate pocket veto. They don't want her publishing something critical, but they also want the PR of having respected AI ethics researchers. So they don't say she can't publish critical work, they just won't let her publish critical work. And when she asks why she can't publish critical work... well she can publish critical work Google has always been very clear that she's free to publish critical work. So she can publish the work? No. No you can't publish the work. That would make me pretty crazy too. I don't she's handled it well, but at the end of the day she's a person and she's facing her job basically being taken from her (and arguably finding out she's been a useful idiot for quite a while).
It's pretty clear here that Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to tell the world that it's got respected scientists doing research into the ethics of their AI work, but they don't actually want researcher to do research about the ethics of their AI work because a lot of what they're doing is unethical.
by pseingatl on 12/10/20, 8:05 AM
Have no doubt: this CYA text was massaged and went through several HR and in-house GC revisions, and maybe even a few round-trips to outside labor litigation counsel.
In other words, this statement is pure CYA and litigation-defensive. They're terrified of a racial discrimination lawsuit.
I hope that Timnit can find her way to the courthouse. I'd love to cross-examine Pichai with this statement in hand. He would deny that these were his words. He would say that he would have expressed it differently. He would say that he wasn't involved with the firing decision: every time the question is asked, the noun used is "termination" and not departure.
The only question remaining, assuming Timnit does file, is quanta of damages.
by arendtio on 12/9/20, 11:12 PM
The mentioned article has some more details:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...
by jp0d on 12/11/20, 12:29 AM
by kjgkjhfkjf on 12/10/20, 8:16 AM
by convery on 12/10/20, 6:43 AM
by egberts1 on 12/10/20, 1:34 PM
by SMAAART on 12/10/20, 2:54 PM
by babesh on 12/10/20, 8:09 AM
The last several years, the SJWs have progressively increased their power. The capitalists have adopted the clothing so that their power isn’t undermined.
The SJWs are seeing how much further they can push. The capitalists are deciding what trinkets they can give away without relinquishing real power.
Eventually, the SJWs will be paid off, destroyed, win completely, or gain seats on the table and then it will be in their interests to preserve the power structure and oppress another group of people.
Look at the Biden cabinet as seats on the table for groups that play nice with the Democratic Party or those that they want to court.
by bosswipe on 12/9/20, 11:02 PM