10 ms·

These things seem to play out like clockwork. Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles, let them hire their activist

These things seem to play out like clockwork. Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles, let them hire their activist friends, shower them with fast track careers and promotions. It's good optics, the progressives like it because it makes them feel better about working at big techs. Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. They nevertheless become increasingly emboldened and misinterpret their situation. After all, no-one dares criticise them, they are showered with feel-good publicity. The only thing they need to do is keep their end of the deal. Until they overstep, get fired, and cause drama by claiming everything that happened to them was due to discrimination, and not because they are toxic and disruptive. I think this is all a good thing because it may alert some executives to the price for hiring activists into research roles. Edit: Should add that I am purely talking about the power dynamics here, not research impact or the question of whether AI policy is an interesting subject. It is, I am just observing that it has not driven particular value to companies when compared to the negative publicity these dramas cause.

swirepe 6y ago
>It's good optics, the progressives like it because it makes them feel better about working at big techs. >Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. These two statements are at odds with each other.
idlewords 6y ago
No one got fired here. Offering to resign was a huge mistake.
- aylmao 6y ago
  > No one got fired here. I mean, from the tweets what I gather is she wasn't planning on leaving just yet. Saying "hey, you want to resign by [X] but we'd rather you be gone so let us inform you've just been resigned as of now" is essentially firing [1]. > Offering to resign was a huge mistake. I think this will be good for her in the long term. I'm sure she'll find another research position, and the alternative was betraying her convictions or just the huge burden of constantly being worn down by Google. [1]: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364735446331392 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364735446331392
  - parliament32 6y ago
    From the response, it was more like "I want you to do X otherwise I'll resign", and google said "ok, cya". Curious the author isn't willing to publish the actual email, just the management's response.
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      "I would post my email here but my corp account has been cutoff."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334353073012158464 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334353073012158464
      - parliament32 6y ago
        See that's interesting, considering she managed to post the manager's response verbatim..
        pseudalopex 6y ago
        It would be logical for the manager to send it to another account so she could read it.
  - idlewords 6y ago
    I have no doubt she'll land on her feet, just like everyone who quits Google in such circumstances, but if you actually want to have an impact in such a situation, make them fire you instead of giving them an out like this.
whymauri 6y ago
>Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. I mean, yes. It's an unfortunate reality that ethics are often at direct odds with the unrelenting pursuit of business value. For a big tech like Google, by caring about people and the impact of your technologies, you will almost surely sacrifice profits in the short term. So then the question is: people or profits?
- high_derivative 6y ago
  Sure - I am just observing this from the power dynamics here. A relatively low-level employee making aggressive and public demands to a large corporation should think carefully about their position. Unless the goal is a scandal for publicity.
- pgayed 6y ago
  > unrelenting pursuit of business value Who determines what value a business gets assigned?
  - whymauri 6y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
    - pgayed 6y ago
      How does value get created?
- pgayed 6y ago
  A business doesn’t get to exist because of its employees. It gets to exist because of its customers.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Or increasingly: because of its investors.
contemporary343 6y ago
Her research work is well-known and has had an impact, whether you like it or not: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Timnit+gebru https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Timnit+gebru Edit: And to be clear, her most cited paper (> 1000 citations) had an impact on what some companies did: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21284683/ibm-no-longer-general-purpose-facial-recognition-analysis-software https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21284683/ibm-no-longer-gen... What is disturbing here, from a researcher's point of view (even within a company!), is the lack of transparency on why a paper is being blocked from publication. The implicit understanding of being a researcher in a company like Google is that, while papers are subject to review prior to submission/publication, that the company will not wholesale reject it and instead will work with you to make modifications and changes. Clearly something different happened here that should be of concern to people considering working at Google Brain.
- no-dr-onboard 6y ago
  Citations by like minded publications hardly constitutes impact. Contrary to what most academics believe, impact isn't measured between the ears of individuals in academia.
  - contemporary343 6y ago
    Uh, what? She's a researcher and this is a Google research division. A 1000 citations is a large number for any single paper, even in ML. And yes, even inside Google research, this aspect of impact plays a big role in evaluation of researchers.
    - siliconmountain 6y ago
      1000 citations is A LOT. I think the person you're responding to is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Popular people get quoted regardless if their paper is actually impactful and that it's, unfortunately, often a popularity contest. People are lazy and only read/cite popular papers
    - Bukhmanizer 6y ago
webkike 6y ago
It seems that one of the reasons they have not produced anything of value is because, at least in this case, the work is actively suppressed. The heart of the issue here is that Timnit tried to publish a paper and was told by upper management to retract it with no further feedback. Maybe if you’re going to hire ethics researchers, you should listen to them?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  If the upper management wanted to retract that paper then it seems reasonable to assume that preparing this paper did not produce any value to the company. Doing work that needs to be actively suppressed is not producing value - at least not to the company. So apparently there's a fundamental misalignment between the work Dr. Gebru wants to do and the work that Google wants her to do; this was made clear with the suppression of the paper, and escalated as Dr. Gebru apparently (and understandably) did not want to work in a very different direction, (quoting her tweet) "asked for simple conditions first" which were totally unacceptable to the employer ("We cannot agree to #1 and #2 as you are requesting."), so that's it, if neither is willing to compromise on their primary goals, they can't work together. This does indicate that apparently listening to ethics researchers they hired is unacceptable to Google. Sad, but not surprising.
  - blueblisters 6y ago
    > If the upper management wanted to retract that paper then it seems reasonable to assume that preparing this paper did not produce any value to the company. I don't know about publishing standards at Google but, assuming they are uniform for all researchers, I am pretty sure Google would be unable to retain talent if researchers were asked to prove value to Google for every paper they publish. I think for researchers, this reinforces the oft-dismissed notion that you give up significant academic freedom in exchange for a fat paycheck when you join an industrial research lab. This can be particularly damaging for Google because many of its research projects don't have an immediate business impact, and it hires top researchers by offering an alternative to the slog of academia.
- Yoofie 6y ago
aaron-santos 6y ago
> The only thing they need to do is keep their end of the deal. Just to be clear, their end of the deal is to justify Google's actions as ethical, not to ensure that Google's actions are ethical.
curiousllama 6y ago
> Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value "As far as I can tell" is doing a lot of work here. I can confirm this is untrue. I worked with someone like Gebru (definitely an activist researcher) at a non-FAANG and AI ethics drove 3 multimillion dollar deals. Was a better business case than most I built over that time. Besides, saying they don't drive revenue is a critique of research roles, not Gebru...
- contemporary343 6y ago
  Agreed: Even if one is cynical (as I am) about the reason these companies hire AI policy and ethics researchers (for PR and to deflect criticisms on how their products operate, far too often) - it is clear that many potential consumers and regulators (!) that are inclined to be skeptical or critical will think more positively of the company. Also, let's be real. How much revenue are the vast majority of AI/ML researchers actually driving in these companies? Sure, someone gets promoted for multiple NeurIPS papers, and it looks great for the company. But most of the time, it doesn't directly impact products and revenue -- in the short-term -- and that's ok. Same deal for AI ethics and policy researchers.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  It's surprising to many but there's a HUGE market for green-stamping and pink-stamping certain projects, by which I mean corporations can tout environmental certifications or credentials or social justice certifications and credentials to their customers and clients. If SC Johnson, for example, can claim that they are helping the environment and they are 100% offsetting all their carbon waste or something like this, and some hi-fi firm in SF is willing to certify them with a bunch of credentialed researchers, it has huge rewards for the company. I'm willing to bet the same is true for "equity" and other things under the umbrella of AI Ethics.
twic 6y ago
Can you really call them toxic and disruptive when they're doing exactly the thing they were told they were hired for? Companies hire activists because they want to look good without actually changing things. Activists go to work for companies because they want to change things. So, naturally, the company has to lie to the activist about their function to do this, and the activist has to be naive about it. If the activist starts doing what they want to do, and not what the company wants them to do, then the company will fire them, and the activist will reach for an explanation.
- voisin 6y ago
  > Companies hire activists because they want to look good without actually changing things. I agree with this statement but for the life of me I can’t come up with a satisfactory answer as to why companies don’t want to actually change things. Is it purely institutional inertia? Are the benefits of a more diverse workplace not accepted by the powers that be, so efforts to achieve that are undermined?
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    From behind the former Iron Curtain, I can smell the "we need to pay lip service to a powerful dogma, but we think implementing it would be a disaster" approach. This was a normal state of things in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. If Timnit Gebru were a cynical opportunist, she would just hop on the bandwagon, pretend to care and collect her paycheck. But she seems to be a true believer, and true believers won't accept ineffectual groveling. They want to see the real thing. Ergo, collision.
    - voisin 6y ago
      But why do they think implementing this would be a disaster? Seems you are saying the fundamental issue is a lack of buy-in, and I am unclear what this stems from. The research shows diversity adds value to companies. Fewer blind spots, better long term performance.
  - NateEag 6y ago
baby 6y ago
Can’t agree more with this comment, except that I don’t know anything about the person here, but I’ve definitely seen that happening. It exists in security as well. It’s easy to give up and say “they don’t care about security here”.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- no-dr-onboard 6y ago
  [in security research and pentesting] Even more than that, it's far easier in infosec to say "There is gatekeeping going on. I'm going off to make my own space where you're not invited."
dmix 6y ago
It really is the same story every time, isn't it? They always flame out of the company with some over complicated victim story because the company had the nerve to not 100% buy in to their non-optional radical demands. It has become an archetype at this point.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Yep "Google is going after black women" except she said "Please comply with several demands or I'll work on an exit date from this company"
- emerged 6y ago
  The archetype expands beyond this particular instance of company/employee, as well. It's something we've been seeing play itself out across the world culturally and politically.
- tolbish 6y ago
  I can't tell if this is about James Damore or not. Is he the victim you are referring to?
  - dmix 6y ago
    No, James was just a random engineer who got fired after the VP of Diversity took issue with the memo he shared. Firing people for sharing unpopular opinions is a whole other nest of bees. One that I'm sure Timmit and her ilk would fully support. So he wasn't exactly the person I had in mind. Nor was Timmit fired and I don't believe Damore was pushing unconditional demands. But that said I can see some similarities with the whole politics at work landmine issue.
    - tolbish 6y ago
      I thought he was fired for insinuating that his female colleagues were hired for reasons other than their merit, not just for sharing a memo with unpopular opinions.
test66973 6y ago
Seems more like you just don't like progressive people for some reason.
- no-dr-onboard 6y ago
  Is that a fair criticism? Seems to be a very broad brush that you're painting with. "Progressive people" encompasses a wide variety of individuals and beliefs.
aylmao 6y ago
> Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles... > I think this is all a good thing because it may alert some executives to the price for hiring activists into research roles. Ah, yes. They're going to do their jobs and point out poor ethics and policy in _your_ company. I mean, they were hired for that, but if they could just look down and _pretend_ to care about the space they were hired for, instead of actually caring, that'd be great.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  Were they hired for that? Or were they hired because - at best, management don't know what else to do to plug a hole in quotas that exists outside their ability to fix, or at worst, it looks good and - they believe - pacifies the critics?
- Veen 6y ago
  You're right. If companies want guidance in ethics, they should hire ethicists and not activists. Activists have an ideological pre-commitment that, unless they sell out, will always trump allegiance to their employer.
Tycho 6y ago
In a way it’s a good self-regulating mechanism for modern capitalism. Dominant companies slowly become paralysed by activist employees, letting nimbler competitors outflank them in the market.
013a 6y ago
I'm especially introspective about this line in the post: > 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. It feels more generally accurate to say that no ones humanity is respected at companies like Google. That isn't to discount or lessen the difficulties minorities and women have in tech companies; those are substantial and significant. But if someone in a diversity role is slighted, the natural place to jump is a diversity motive; its far more likely that the company just doesn't give a shit about anyone. And that's true of nearly every company. It was immature for us, as a community, to believe big tech would be any different than any other megacorp. They say they care about diversity, inclusion, and people; they don't. They don't care about any individual. Companies, as a collective intelligence, care about two things: Money and Self-Preservation (in that order). That being said, I totally support the fight that people like Timnit are fighting; they're fighting for the recognition of humanity, through the lens of diversity and inclusion, a critical component of a much larger fight intrinsic to a capitalistic society. That's the value of a hire like this; its just the unimaginably unfortunate case that this value hasn't been realized at Google, and probably never will.
namesbc 6y ago
As soon as someone uses the phrase "social justice warriors" you know they the rest of the argument isn't going to have any substance.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  No, you know they come from a certain viewpoint that has increasing common cause with people fed up with the excesses of the left. They may be wrong, but it's a valid coinage that has worryingly become mainstream enough to be both a cliche and indicative of something deeply wrong with our society.
- no-dr-onboard 6y ago
  Its depressingly ironic how intolerant OPs comment is to the conversation.
- 6nf 6y ago
  Your comment is pretty meta
zemo 6y ago
https://twitter.com/math_rachel/status/1163637485533929473 https://twitter.com/math_rachel/status/1163637485533929473 her research has been cited in multiple lawsuits and piece of legislation. It is clear from the tone of your comment that you like technology because technology is power, and your interest is not in seeing technology used to create a better future for all mankind, but to instead reach the top of existing structures of power and to dominate others.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Is there any chance of avoiding personal attacks?
  - zemo 6y ago
    OP's post is a long string of personal attacks against Timnit so this comment is pathetic and hilarious. The entirety of this site is just worshiping at the altar of technosupremacy and comments in this thread have put that reality on full display. I am not surprised by the cowardice on display, but I am surprised by the uniformity.
itronitron 6y ago
The negative publicity is a result of Google only providing feedback on her research paper, and forcing its retraction, through an HR mediated and anonymized process. That is toxic.
- gundmc 6y ago
  I don't understand this argument. Why do the providers of the feedback need to be unmasked? So they can be disregarded because of their race or gender or "position of privilege"? From what I can tell, she doesn't seem to address the points raised at all and instead complains they won't tell her exactly who said what.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    The anonymity of the reviewers might be somewhat detrimental, but it might not. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0399_197 https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0399_197 I think the process being opaque is more detrimental, because there's no way for anyone outside of the process to know it happens. If it wasn't opaque, then everyone could see when it happens. Not being able to engage in a debate about the merits of something is also sketchy. It seems like an order being dressed-up as peer feedback.
thex10 6y ago
> Until they overstep, get fired, and cause drama by claiming everything that happened to them was due to discrimination, and not because they are toxic and disruptive. IMO it’s the _companies_ that strike me as toxic drama queens with their shady tactics and obfuscations, hiring ethics and policy folks to look good without any intent on following through with support or respect.
ucha 6y ago
Timnit Gebru has a BSc, MSc and PhD in electrical engineering all from Stanford. She did actual electrical engineering work at Apple previously. Maybe it's hard to believe but she's not just another SJW. The idea that companies only need to do maximize shareholder value isn't that old and was only popularized in the 80s. If you restrict creating value to that, then maybe she didn't create any at Google. But maybe Google wants to create a software that works equally well for everyone and raising the issue of IA biases would have helped achieve that goal.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "she's not just another SJW." How is this either/or? Highly educated people can still join fringe political clubs. There is nothing about technical education that immunizes you against radical politics. At the risk of Godwinizing the reply: the engineers who built the first liquid fuelled rockets in Peenemunde were N..z..s, including the guy who was later brought into the US and built all kind of powerful and ingenious rockets there (Wernher von Braun).

swirepe 6y ago

>It's good optics, the progressives like it because it makes them feel better about working at big techs. >Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. These two statements are at odds with each other.

idlewords 6y ago

No one got fired here. Offering to resign was a huge mistake.

aylmao 6y ago
> No one got fired here. I mean, from the tweets what I gather is she wasn't planning on leaving just yet. Saying "hey, you want to resign by [X] but we'd rather you be gone so let us inform you've just been resigned as of now" is essentially firing [1]. > Offering to resign was a huge mistake. I think this will be good for her in the long term. I'm sure she'll find another research position, and the alternative was betraying her convictions or just the huge burden of constantly being worn down by Google. [1]: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364735446331392 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364735446331392
- parliament32 6y ago
  From the response, it was more like "I want you to do X otherwise I'll resign", and google said "ok, cya". Curious the author isn't willing to publish the actual email, just the management's response.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    "I would post my email here but my corp account has been cutoff."[1] [1] https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334353073012158464 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334353073012158464
    - parliament32 6y ago
      See that's interesting, considering she managed to post the manager's response verbatim..
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        It would be logical for the manager to send it to another account so she could read it.
- idlewords 6y ago
  I have no doubt she'll land on her feet, just like everyone who quits Google in such circumstances, but if you actually want to have an impact in such a situation, make them fire you instead of giving them an out like this.

whymauri 6y ago

>Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value to any of these companies. I mean, yes. It's an unfortunate reality that ethics are often at direct odds with the unrelenting pursuit of business value. For a big tech like Google, by caring about people and the impact of your technologies, you will almost surely sacrifice profits in the short term. So then the question is: people or profits?

high_derivative 6y ago
Sure - I am just observing this from the power dynamics here. A relatively low-level employee making aggressive and public demands to a large corporation should think carefully about their position. Unless the goal is a scandal for publicity.
pgayed 6y ago
> unrelenting pursuit of business value Who determines what value a business gets assigned?
- whymauri 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
  - pgayed 6y ago
    How does value get created?
pgayed 6y ago
A business doesn’t get to exist because of its employees. It gets to exist because of its customers.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Or increasingly: because of its investors.

contemporary343 6y ago

Her research work is well-known and has had an impact, whether you like it or not: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Timnit+gebru https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Timnit+gebru Edit: And to be clear, her most cited paper (> 1000 citations) had an impact on what some companies did: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21284683/ibm-no-longer-general-purpose-facial-recognition-analysis-software https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21284683/ibm-no-longer-gen... What is disturbing here, from a researcher's point of view (even within a company!), is the lack of transparency on why a paper is being blocked from publication. The implicit understanding of being a researcher in a company like Google is that, while papers are subject to review prior to submission/publication, that the company will not wholesale reject it and instead will work with you to make modifications and changes. Clearly something different happened here that should be of concern to people considering working at Google Brain.

no-dr-onboard 6y ago
Citations by like minded publications hardly constitutes impact. Contrary to what most academics believe, impact isn't measured between the ears of individuals in academia.
- contemporary343 6y ago
  Uh, what? She's a researcher and this is a Google research division. A 1000 citations is a large number for any single paper, even in ML. And yes, even inside Google research, this aspect of impact plays a big role in evaluation of researchers.
  - siliconmountain 6y ago
    1000 citations is A LOT. I think the person you're responding to is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Popular people get quoted regardless if their paper is actually impactful and that it's, unfortunately, often a popularity contest. People are lazy and only read/cite popular papers
  - Bukhmanizer 6y ago

webkike 6y ago

It seems that one of the reasons they have not produced anything of value is because, at least in this case, the work is actively suppressed. The heart of the issue here is that Timnit tried to publish a paper and was told by upper management to retract it with no further feedback. Maybe if you’re going to hire ethics researchers, you should listen to them?

PeterisP 6y ago
If the upper management wanted to retract that paper then it seems reasonable to assume that preparing this paper did not produce any value to the company. Doing work that needs to be actively suppressed is not producing value - at least not to the company. So apparently there's a fundamental misalignment between the work Dr. Gebru wants to do and the work that Google wants her to do; this was made clear with the suppression of the paper, and escalated as Dr. Gebru apparently (and understandably) did not want to work in a very different direction, (quoting her tweet) "asked for simple conditions first" which were totally unacceptable to the employer ("We cannot agree to #1 and #2 as you are requesting."), so that's it, if neither is willing to compromise on their primary goals, they can't work together. This does indicate that apparently listening to ethics researchers they hired is unacceptable to Google. Sad, but not surprising.
- blueblisters 6y ago
  > If the upper management wanted to retract that paper then it seems reasonable to assume that preparing this paper did not produce any value to the company. I don't know about publishing standards at Google but, assuming they are uniform for all researchers, I am pretty sure Google would be unable to retain talent if researchers were asked to prove value to Google for every paper they publish. I think for researchers, this reinforces the oft-dismissed notion that you give up significant academic freedom in exchange for a fat paycheck when you join an industrial research lab. This can be particularly damaging for Google because many of its research projects don't have an immediate business impact, and it hires top researchers by offering an alternative to the slog of academia.
Yoofie 6y ago

aaron-santos 6y ago

> The only thing they need to do is keep their end of the deal. Just to be clear, their end of the deal is to justify Google's actions as ethical, not to ensure that Google's actions are ethical.

curiousllama 6y ago

> Said hires have thus far, as far as I can tell, not produced anything of substantial value "As far as I can tell" is doing a lot of work here. I can confirm this is untrue. I worked with someone like Gebru (definitely an activist researcher) at a non-FAANG and AI ethics drove 3 multimillion dollar deals. Was a better business case than most I built over that time. Besides, saying they don't drive revenue is a critique of research roles, not Gebru...

contemporary343 6y ago
Agreed: Even if one is cynical (as I am) about the reason these companies hire AI policy and ethics researchers (for PR and to deflect criticisms on how their products operate, far too often) - it is clear that many potential consumers and regulators (!) that are inclined to be skeptical or critical will think more positively of the company. Also, let's be real. How much revenue are the vast majority of AI/ML researchers actually driving in these companies? Sure, someone gets promoted for multiple NeurIPS papers, and it looks great for the company. But most of the time, it doesn't directly impact products and revenue -- in the short-term -- and that's ok. Same deal for AI ethics and policy researchers.
notsureaboutpg 6y ago
It's surprising to many but there's a HUGE market for green-stamping and pink-stamping certain projects, by which I mean corporations can tout environmental certifications or credentials or social justice certifications and credentials to their customers and clients. If SC Johnson, for example, can claim that they are helping the environment and they are 100% offsetting all their carbon waste or something like this, and some hi-fi firm in SF is willing to certify them with a bunch of credentialed researchers, it has huge rewards for the company. I'm willing to bet the same is true for "equity" and other things under the umbrella of AI Ethics.

twic 6y ago

Can you really call them toxic and disruptive when they're doing exactly the thing they were told they were hired for? Companies hire activists because they want to look good without actually changing things. Activists go to work for companies because they want to change things. So, naturally, the company has to lie to the activist about their function to do this, and the activist has to be naive about it. If the activist starts doing what they want to do, and not what the company wants them to do, then the company will fire them, and the activist will reach for an explanation.

voisin 6y ago
> Companies hire activists because they want to look good without actually changing things. I agree with this statement but for the life of me I can’t come up with a satisfactory answer as to why companies don’t want to actually change things. Is it purely institutional inertia? Are the benefits of a more diverse workplace not accepted by the powers that be, so efforts to achieve that are undermined?
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  From behind the former Iron Curtain, I can smell the "we need to pay lip service to a powerful dogma, but we think implementing it would be a disaster" approach. This was a normal state of things in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. If Timnit Gebru were a cynical opportunist, she would just hop on the bandwagon, pretend to care and collect her paycheck. But she seems to be a true believer, and true believers won't accept ineffectual groveling. They want to see the real thing. Ergo, collision.
  - voisin 6y ago
    But why do they think implementing this would be a disaster? Seems you are saying the fundamental issue is a lack of buy-in, and I am unclear what this stems from. The research shows diversity adds value to companies. Fewer blind spots, better long term performance.
- NateEag 6y ago

baby 6y ago

Can’t agree more with this comment, except that I don’t know anything about the person here, but I’ve definitely seen that happening. It exists in security as well. It’s easy to give up and say “they don’t care about security here”.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
no-dr-onboard 6y ago
[in security research and pentesting] Even more than that, it's far easier in infosec to say "There is gatekeeping going on. I'm going off to make my own space where you're not invited."

dmix 6y ago

It really is the same story every time, isn't it? They always flame out of the company with some over complicated victim story because the company had the nerve to not 100% buy in to their non-optional radical demands. It has become an archetype at this point.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Yep "Google is going after black women" except she said "Please comply with several demands or I'll work on an exit date from this company"
emerged 6y ago
The archetype expands beyond this particular instance of company/employee, as well. It's something we've been seeing play itself out across the world culturally and politically.
tolbish 6y ago
I can't tell if this is about James Damore or not. Is he the victim you are referring to?
- dmix 6y ago
  No, James was just a random engineer who got fired after the VP of Diversity took issue with the memo he shared. Firing people for sharing unpopular opinions is a whole other nest of bees. One that I'm sure Timmit and her ilk would fully support. So he wasn't exactly the person I had in mind. Nor was Timmit fired and I don't believe Damore was pushing unconditional demands. But that said I can see some similarities with the whole politics at work landmine issue.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    I thought he was fired for insinuating that his female colleagues were hired for reasons other than their merit, not just for sharing a memo with unpopular opinions.

test66973 6y ago

Seems more like you just don't like progressive people for some reason.

no-dr-onboard 6y ago
Is that a fair criticism? Seems to be a very broad brush that you're painting with. "Progressive people" encompasses a wide variety of individuals and beliefs.

aylmao 6y ago

> Progressive companies hire social justice warriors into vague ethics or policy roles... > I think this is all a good thing because it may alert some executives to the price for hiring activists into research roles. Ah, yes. They're going to do their jobs and point out poor ethics and policy in _your_ company. I mean, they were hired for that, but if they could just look down and _pretend_ to care about the space they were hired for, instead of actually caring, that'd be great.

mellosouls 6y ago
Were they hired for that? Or were they hired because - at best, management don't know what else to do to plug a hole in quotas that exists outside their ability to fix, or at worst, it looks good and - they believe - pacifies the critics?
Veen 6y ago
You're right. If companies want guidance in ethics, they should hire ethicists and not activists. Activists have an ideological pre-commitment that, unless they sell out, will always trump allegiance to their employer.

Tycho 6y ago

In a way it’s a good self-regulating mechanism for modern capitalism. Dominant companies slowly become paralysed by activist employees, letting nimbler competitors outflank them in the market.

013a 6y ago

I'm especially introspective about this line in the post: > 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. It feels more generally accurate to say that no ones humanity is respected at companies like Google. That isn't to discount or lessen the difficulties minorities and women have in tech companies; those are substantial and significant. But if someone in a diversity role is slighted, the natural place to jump is a diversity motive; its far more likely that the company just doesn't give a shit about anyone. And that's true of nearly every company. It was immature for us, as a community, to believe big tech would be any different than any other megacorp. They say they care about diversity, inclusion, and people; they don't. They don't care about any individual. Companies, as a collective intelligence, care about two things: Money and Self-Preservation (in that order). That being said, I totally support the fight that people like Timnit are fighting; they're fighting for the recognition of humanity, through the lens of diversity and inclusion, a critical component of a much larger fight intrinsic to a capitalistic society. That's the value of a hire like this; its just the unimaginably unfortunate case that this value hasn't been realized at Google, and probably never will.

namesbc 6y ago

As soon as someone uses the phrase "social justice warriors" you know they the rest of the argument isn't going to have any substance.

mellosouls 6y ago
No, you know they come from a certain viewpoint that has increasing common cause with people fed up with the excesses of the left. They may be wrong, but it's a valid coinage that has worryingly become mainstream enough to be both a cliche and indicative of something deeply wrong with our society.
no-dr-onboard 6y ago
Its depressingly ironic how intolerant OPs comment is to the conversation.
6nf 6y ago
Your comment is pretty meta

zemo 6y ago

https://twitter.com/math_rachel/status/1163637485533929473 https://twitter.com/math_rachel/status/1163637485533929473 her research has been cited in multiple lawsuits and piece of legislation. It is clear from the tone of your comment that you like technology because technology is power, and your interest is not in seeing technology used to create a better future for all mankind, but to instead reach the top of existing structures of power and to dominate others.

mcguire 6y ago
Is there any chance of avoiding personal attacks?
- zemo 6y ago
  OP's post is a long string of personal attacks against Timnit so this comment is pathetic and hilarious. The entirety of this site is just worshiping at the altar of technosupremacy and comments in this thread have put that reality on full display. I am not surprised by the cowardice on display, but I am surprised by the uniformity.

itronitron 6y ago

The negative publicity is a result of Google only providing feedback on her research paper, and forcing its retraction, through an HR mediated and anonymized process. That is toxic.

gundmc 6y ago
I don't understand this argument. Why do the providers of the feedback need to be unmasked? So they can be disregarded because of their race or gender or "position of privilege"? From what I can tell, she doesn't seem to address the points raised at all and instead complains they won't tell her exactly who said what.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  The anonymity of the reviewers might be somewhat detrimental, but it might not. https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0399_197 https://www.nature.com/articles/nn0399_197 I think the process being opaque is more detrimental, because there's no way for anyone outside of the process to know it happens. If it wasn't opaque, then everyone could see when it happens. Not being able to engage in a debate about the merits of something is also sketchy. It seems like an order being dressed-up as peer feedback.

thex10 6y ago

> Until they overstep, get fired, and cause drama by claiming everything that happened to them was due to discrimination, and not because they are toxic and disruptive. IMO it’s the _companies_ that strike me as toxic drama queens with their shady tactics and obfuscations, hiring ethics and policy folks to look good without any intent on following through with support or respect.

ucha 6y ago

Timnit Gebru has a BSc, MSc and PhD in electrical engineering all from Stanford. She did actual electrical engineering work at Apple previously. Maybe it's hard to believe but she's not just another SJW. The idea that companies only need to do maximize shareholder value isn't that old and was only popularized in the 80s. If you restrict creating value to that, then maybe she didn't create any at Google. But maybe Google wants to create a software that works equally well for everyone and raising the issue of IA biases would have helped achieve that goal.

inglor_cz 6y ago
"she's not just another SJW." How is this either/or? Highly educated people can still join fringe political clubs. There is nothing about technical education that immunizes you against radical politics. At the risk of Godwinizing the reply: the engineers who built the first liquid fuelled rockets in Peenemunde were N..z..s, including the guy who was later brought into the US and built all kind of powerful and ingenious rockets there (Wernher von Braun).