7 ms·
I think this is actually the better link to be discussing, rather than the twitter threads shared before. The most relevant parts (in terms of back story) shou
by black_puppydog 6y ago
I think this is actually the better link to be discussing, rather than the twitter threads shared before.
The most relevant parts (in terms of back story) should be this:
> A week before you go out on vacation, you see a meeting pop up at 4:30pm PST on your calendar (this popped up at around 2pm). No one would tell you what the meeting was about in advance. Then in that meeting your manager’s manager tells you “it has been decided” that you need to retract this paper by next week, Nov. 27, the week when almost everyone would be out (and a date which has nothing to do with the conference process). You are not worth having any conversations about this, since you are not someone whose humanity (let alone expertise recognized by journalists, governments, scientists, civic organizations such as the electronic frontiers foundation etc) is acknowledged or valued in this company.
> Then, you ask for more information. What specific feedback exists? Who is it coming from? Why now? Why not before? Can you go back and forth with anyone? Can you understand what exactly is problematic and what can be changed?
> And you are told after a while, that your manager can read you a privileged and confidential document and you’re not supposed to even know who contributed to this document, who wrote this feedback, what process was followed or anything. You write a detailed document discussing whatever pieces of feedback you can find, asking for questions and clarifications, and it is completely ignored. And you’re met with, once again, an order to retract the paper with no engagement whatsoever.
- curiousllama 6y agoI really want to read that paper. Can't wait til it's published. Presuming it'll be at FAccT*...
- black_puppydog 6y agoUnderrated post. Would be interesting indeed.
- curiousllama 6y agoPure speculation, but it's gotta be criticizing Google, right? What else could they _possibly_ have been so concerned about that they were willing to fire the researcher over it?
- black_puppydog 6y agoThat would be the nail in the coffin of "we do AI ethics at Google." Gonna have to wait and see I guess.
- ConceptJunkie 6y agoGoogle? Ethics?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoAnd, when reading it, I want to remember the backstory - that (if we can believe her story) Google went to unreasonable lengths to try to block the paper. Maybe someone could post it here when it's published?
- yaoxx151 6y agoIt might not be FAccT. The deadline was a month ago but it seems she submitted the paper recently.
- Bukhmanizer 6y agoIt’s more relevant, but probably doesn’t tell the whole story considering she very heavily hints that she gave them a list of demands or she would resign, and Google just accepted her resignation.
- mkolodny 6y ago"Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date." We don't know the full list of demands, but Jeff Dean shared one demand that people may find unreasonable. Other demands may have been much more reasonable, but those weren't shared.
- Andraia 6y ago> We don't know the full list of demands Timnit is far from silent. She could share them if she wanted to. She appears to think that that would hurt rather than help her.
- rbanffy 6y agoConsidering she says she made a list of issues she'd like fixed and that she'd discuss it when she came back from PTO without ever mentioning resignation and that was answered with a "we accept your resignation" passed on to her reports, I believe she has legal representation. The financial implications of her resigning vs her being fired are probably significant. In Google's place I'd probably negotiate an agreement with a non-disparagement clause. She'd be compensated and everyone would save face. And we'd never be discussing this. She could take other research roles and advance the state of AI in peace.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- southstreet 6y ago"feedback" here seems to refer to feedback on the scientific paper that is being retracted, not personal performance feedback or anything like that. When I red this first, wasn't immediately clear what this was about.
- black_puppydog 6y agoGood point, that also took a bit of disentangling for me. As such, I find it really quite baffling that someone would be unwilling to share that scientific feedback with her, or who raised it.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoBecause she goes on unhinged rants and smears people by calling them racists, probably. Nobody wants to stick their hand in that hornets nest.
- dash2 6y agoSome refereeing processes are anonymous, and there can be good reasons for that, like preventing academic logrolling. It's standard in academia.
- ConceptJunkie 6y agoBut the feedback itself wasn't shared with her. That part doesn't make sense unless management didn't want her to see it, and why would that be the case?
- thebladerunner 6y agoBecause (a) by the rules of engagement, management is not required to share original feedback, and (b) the original feedback could be used to identify the sources. In this case, there might have been a real risk to the sources given the individual in question is known to mobilize internal and external forces like Twitter mobs to personally attack people and bully them into submission.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jerome-jh 6y ago> behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager. Maybe my remark is down to earth but, she literally told her group to stop working. I do not know of any company where this is an acceptable behavior for a manager. Besides the disagreements, it sounds to me that was the action that caused Google to pull the trigger. Also from Dean's email it is pretty clear there are a number of new products down the pipe based on AI. At one point top management decided the company should stop denigrating its own products.
- fhrow4484 6y ago> she literally told her group to stop working. Where did you read that? in the email shown,she told a listserv called "Women and Allies" to stop writing docs that are an attempt to better the situation in terms of diversity, equity, inclusion as writing those docs are like pissing in the wind in her opinion
- caddemon 6y agoWell there is precedence for firing people who criticize Google's diversity policies on mailing lists...
- PeterisP 6y agoQuoting Jeff Dean's email about this (as published in https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...) " I also feel badly that hundreds of you received an email just this week from Timnit telling you to stop work on critical DEI programs. Please don’t. I understand the frustration about the pace of progress, but we have important work ahead and we need to keep at it." implies that at least Google does interpret her email as her telling people to stop work on certain issues.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- frongpik 6y agoShe was fired for damaging Google's reputation. In her email, she carelessly demanded names of those who reported her, that can be interpreted as extortion, and Jeff didn't miss the opportunity to call her out. Her offer to resign was another mistake: she would be fired anyways, but for a different reason and with more paperwork. Now if she takes this to a court, she would have to tell the judge what she needed the names for.