7 ms·

All this says is, she sent a mail to Brain Women and Allies that resulted in her immediate termination. Does anyone else remember when she picked a fight with

All this says is, she sent a mail to Brain Women and Allies that resulted in her immediate termination. Does anyone else remember when she picked a fight with Yann LeCunn by deliberately misinterpreting his remarks to cast him as a racist? Seems reasonable to assume she picked another fight. Reading the Twitter threat, it reads like she made demands in a way visible to a large number of employees (something about authorship on a paper, to skim the Twitter thread) and perhaps attacked Google while being a manager there (the emphasis on talking to non-management employees sounds like this). I assume the email will leak, this being Google we are talking about.

esyir 6y ago
Sounds like a win to me then.
thundergolfer 6y ago
Says she deliberately attempts to cast LeCunn as a racist is a very uncharitable framing, but putting that aside, it doesn’t actually seem reasonable to assume she picked a fight. We have no idea what was in the email.
- throwaway-kmc 6y ago
  How would you describe what happened? LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. He was then excoriated as a racist by this woman and the Twitter mobs she incited, to the point where this Turing Award winner is no longer willing to engage with the public via that medium. LeCunn made repeated attempts to explain his position, only to be virtually shouted over about he wasn’t listening to people of color because he pointed out that a model trained on White people learned to produce images of White people, and that if it had been trained on Black people it would produce images of Black people. It was a research paper, not a production system, and Gebru and her acolytes were much more interested in scoring cheap points than in having a serious conversation about either ML fairness or the merits of this particular paper. Seriously, the primary sources can be read by anyone.
  - astrange 6y ago
    > LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. But this claim is certainly not necessarily correct, and he shouldn't have been so confident about it. Any part of a system can contribute to bias and that includes the model design, not just the data. If they want the system to work then they need to actually demonstrate it works, not just say it could with X change without testing that. Though I remember people arguing it didn't work properly at the same time they were saying it was evil (because it contributed to surveillance). Which is odd because if you don't want it to exist, you shouldn't want it to work either.
    - fullstackPM 6y ago
      Wouldn't that go both ways though? Why was Gebru so confident that the bias is because of something else other than the training dataset? She immediately assumed that there are other items contributing to the bias and devolved the quality of the conversation as well by making those claims in a frustrated/exasperated tone. The most obvious and easiest way to clear this up would be for the original researches to train the model on a "Senegal" dataset as mentioned by LeCunn and see what the results are.
      - compycom 6y ago
        The whole point is that it never is trained on a "Senegal" dataset, is it? Why do we always see these errors where white-centric datasets produce white-centric results? While it would be a symmetric situation a vacuum, we do not live in a vacuum. And acknowledging dataset bias by itself doesn't address the bias meaningfully. In practice, we often treat the bias as an exogenous factor when it is not, moving it outside the scope of our responsibility. But it is very much the product of our work, a reflection of our choices, values, and beliefs about what to prioritize. We can't abdicate our responsibility for it; the stakes are too high.
        6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
- thebladerunner 6y ago
  She has been advancing her agenda for a while by strategically picking fights, and winning them because she's been on the right side of a political wave and knew how to ride it. Then she got blinded by her own success and overplayed her hand, a classic cautionary tale. Fun fact: many people, not necessarily managers, won't be shedding tears seeing her go.
  - jiuahweruihawi 6y ago
    Do you work for Google?
square_usual 6y ago
It's not "reasonable" to assume "she picked a fight". It's not "reasonable" to fire someone for "picking a fight", whatever that is. It's awful how people are willing to be so charitable to Google here after doing the exact opposite in Damore's case.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not really about charity to Google. I just don't consider her Twitter feed a trustworthy source of information, given her general frequency of toxic Twitter drama and her extended, bad faith attack on LeCun. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Google was in the wrong here, and if they are I hope she gets some kind of justice, but I don't think we can just take her word for it.
  - visarga 6y ago
    Yeah, after that episode I blacklisted her on my Twitter.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  People get fired for picking fights all the time. You say that's not reasonable, but what's reasonable about subjecting all the other employees at a company to somebody who picks fights?
- mam2 6y ago
  At least Google was consistent: it fired both people who were causing too much trouble. (BTW This is actually the fun part of the Damore story: the guy think he is smart by explaining how "evolution" makes gender different but misses the ABSOLUTE main point of evolution which is that "to survive to an environement you must fit in it". He didn't fit in the google environement, he got fired.)
  - jldugger 6y ago
    He's just seeking a different niche :troll:

esyir 6y ago

Sounds like a win to me then.

thundergolfer 6y ago

Says she deliberately attempts to cast LeCunn as a racist is a very uncharitable framing, but putting that aside, it doesn’t actually seem reasonable to assume she picked a fight. We have no idea what was in the email.

throwaway-kmc 6y ago
How would you describe what happened? LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. He was then excoriated as a racist by this woman and the Twitter mobs she incited, to the point where this Turing Award winner is no longer willing to engage with the public via that medium. LeCunn made repeated attempts to explain his position, only to be virtually shouted over about he wasn’t listening to people of color because he pointed out that a model trained on White people learned to produce images of White people, and that if it had been trained on Black people it would produce images of Black people. It was a research paper, not a production system, and Gebru and her acolytes were much more interested in scoring cheap points than in having a serious conversation about either ML fairness or the merits of this particular paper. Seriously, the primary sources can be read by anyone.
- astrange 6y ago
  > LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data. But this claim is certainly not necessarily correct, and he shouldn't have been so confident about it. Any part of a system can contribute to bias and that includes the model design, not just the data. If they want the system to work then they need to actually demonstrate it works, not just say it could with X change without testing that. Though I remember people arguing it didn't work properly at the same time they were saying it was evil (because it contributed to surveillance). Which is odd because if you don't want it to exist, you shouldn't want it to work either.
  - fullstackPM 6y ago
    Wouldn't that go both ways though? Why was Gebru so confident that the bias is because of something else other than the training dataset? She immediately assumed that there are other items contributing to the bias and devolved the quality of the conversation as well by making those claims in a frustrated/exasperated tone. The most obvious and easiest way to clear this up would be for the original researches to train the model on a "Senegal" dataset as mentioned by LeCunn and see what the results are.
    - compycom 6y ago
      The whole point is that it never is trained on a "Senegal" dataset, is it? Why do we always see these errors where white-centric datasets produce white-centric results? While it would be a symmetric situation a vacuum, we do not live in a vacuum. And acknowledging dataset bias by itself doesn't address the bias meaningfully. In practice, we often treat the bias as an exogenous factor when it is not, moving it outside the scope of our responsibility. But it is very much the product of our work, a reflection of our choices, values, and beliefs about what to prioritize. We can't abdicate our responsibility for it; the stakes are too high.
      - 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
thebladerunner 6y ago
She has been advancing her agenda for a while by strategically picking fights, and winning them because she's been on the right side of a political wave and knew how to ride it. Then she got blinded by her own success and overplayed her hand, a classic cautionary tale. Fun fact: many people, not necessarily managers, won't be shedding tears seeing her go.
- jiuahweruihawi 6y ago
  Do you work for Google?

square_usual 6y ago

It's not "reasonable" to assume "she picked a fight". It's not "reasonable" to fire someone for "picking a fight", whatever that is. It's awful how people are willing to be so charitable to Google here after doing the exact opposite in Damore's case.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's not really about charity to Google. I just don't consider her Twitter feed a trustworthy source of information, given her general frequency of toxic Twitter drama and her extended, bad faith attack on LeCun. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Google was in the wrong here, and if they are I hope she gets some kind of justice, but I don't think we can just take her word for it.
- visarga 6y ago
  Yeah, after that episode I blacklisted her on my Twitter.
bigbubba 6y ago
People get fired for picking fights all the time. You say that's not reasonable, but what's reasonable about subjecting all the other employees at a company to somebody who picks fights?
mam2 6y ago
At least Google was consistent: it fired both people who were causing too much trouble. (BTW This is actually the fun part of the Damore story: the guy think he is smart by explaining how "evolution" makes gender different but misses the ABSOLUTE main point of evolution which is that "to survive to an environement you must fit in it". He didn't fit in the google environement, he got fired.)
- jldugger 6y ago
  He's just seeking a different niche :troll: