10 ms·

Good for Google. I don't know anything about her, but her debate with Lecun on Twitter was enough for me to know she is toxic. I don't care how good of a resear

• Crash0v3rid3 6y ago
  Can you point me to that Twitter thread?
  • buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
    I'm not 100% sure, but perhaps this one? https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1274809417653866496?s=20 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1274809417653866496?s...
  • mellosouls 6y ago
    Overview here, pasted from another commenter elsewhere in this rabbit hole. https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter-amid-acrimonious-exchanges-on-ai-bias/ https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits-twitter...
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • flipgimble 6y ago
      It sounds like LeCun stepped away from twitter and that thread because he was fed up with the toxic discourse and did not attribute that to Timnit in particular. Its strange that OP post sounds exactly like what LeCun was asking people to stop doing: ".. I'd like to ask everyone to please stop attacking each other via Twitter or other means. In particular, I'd like everyone to please stop attacking @timnitGebru and everyone who has been critical of my posts. Conflicts, verbal or otherwise, are hurtful and counter-productive... " -- https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1277372578231996424?s=20 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1277372578231996424?s=20
    • antpls 6y ago
      TLDR : Yann Lecun tweeted that ML models are biased when the dataset they are trained on is biased. Bunch of people, including Timnit Gebru, replied he is wrong and the biases are every where and systemic. Yann later tweeted again to explain what he meant in the context of deep learning models without hand engineered features, but people ignored him and still replied he was wrong. It looks like they were accusing Yann of all the systemic biases of society... common. Is there a paper showing that the Transformers based models are "biased" no matter the dataset ?
      • anon7725 6y ago
        This episode happened during the blood moon of Jacobin Twitter this summer. I saw colleagues denouncing colleagues for “liking” the wrong tweet.
• thrwe234324 6y ago
  Serves Google right.
• chrisbroadfoot 6y ago
  What about that thread shows she's toxic?
  • mring33621 6y ago
    I second this question. I would say, from the little I know about her, that she is both challenging and interesting, both in a really good way. I really enjoyed this deck of hers, which I found as a result of reading this thread: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rcG8KVmjRUWWNSg-R6cTBlAScP9UkCJp/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rcG8KVmjRUWWNSg-R6cTBlAScP9...
  • roenxi 6y ago
    I know you are referring to 'that thread', but in this email (from the article) she said: "So if you would like to change things, I suggest focusing on leadership accountability and thinking through what types of pressures can also be applied from the outside. For instance, I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus..." Skipping parts of the chain of command to deal with grievances is usually a toxic behaviour. Trying to skip the entire corporation and going straight to the government counts too, IMO. This woman has opportunities, abilities and successes that most of us can only dream of and she's using that to try and make Google a vehicle for political goals not quite articulated here (this email is obviously not written for public consumption, it is light on specific details apart from her thinking there are insufficient women hired). I can see the complaint against her, she's already got an advantage in life and now she's using her access at Google to try and strengthen her hand and weaken that of her coworkers.
    • zhengyi13 6y ago
      If you've got strong reasons to believe your chain of command is going to respond not at all (or worse, badly) to your grievances, then going outside that chain is not toxic, but simply attempting to be effective.
    • joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Skipping parts of the chain of command to deal with grievances is usually a toxic behaviour Not if you've already attempted to escalate up the normal chain of command. In such cases it's often considered morally required.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Never heard if her, but after seeing her twitter feed, it’s pretty obvious how toxic she is. Already flying off the handle and accusing Jeff Dean and Google of racist conspiracies, as if her own behavior couldn’t possibly be the reason.
• gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > Welcome to the real world, companies have policies and once you join them you lose your freedom to do whatever the heck you want. Yea there is something uniquely activist academic about all these complaints you see surfacing nowadays. As though millenials are landing in industry now and they're surprised their employers are companies selling products and not activist organizations. And you're right it's even funnier when the people complaining are urbane academics from elite institutions outraged that they don't unquestionable authority to enact policy.
  • benhurmarcel 6y ago
    "Millenials" have been entering the industry for more than 15 years now. Don't put an entire generation in the same basket as a few visible people.
    • gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      Yea it's a broad/inaccurate catch-all, but I'm a millenial and I feel like when I was in college (early 2010s) you were beginning to see illiberal attitudes on campus start to take off and normalize. Like stigmatizing advocates of free expression, a general embrace of safety-ism, scream invectives until the bureaucracy buckles tactics, etc.
    • iab 6y ago
      Millennials - the most amorphous generation
• xibalba 6y ago
  > I read her email. Is this now posted somewhere publicly? I feel like most of this conversation is pretty speculative until the commentariat (self included) can read it! EDIT: duh
  • strstr 6y ago
    It’s in the article?
    • xibalba 6y ago
      This is not the email in which she offers a resignation ultimatum, an exchange referred to in her Twitter thread as occurring between Timnit, (presumably) her boss (Megan?), and possibly others.
• adamsea 6y ago
  I dunno. Consider that when Google found that a sexual harassment claim against Andy Rubin was valid, and so Google asked him to leave, they also paid him 90 million bucks when they didn’t have to. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/tech... “ Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms.” Let’s assume that’s true. What is worse behavior? Obviously his. Yet he gets paid. It’s not an apples to apples comparison but if google was to say to anyone, “goodbye and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”, shouldn’t it be this guy and the other dudes mentioned in the article? And IMHO the fact that they didn’t is a great example of systemic sexism in action. So it’s not unreasonable to wonder if similar forces played a role in this situation. It’s not surprising that companies function like this but that doesn’t make it right, and, it doesn’t mean that (even though change is slow) it isn’t possible to change norms. We don’t know the full details; Googles firing of her may be valid. But to be as dismissive of her being a representative of marginalized groups, and facing prejudice (conscious or unconscious) herself, is wrong. IMHO.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• tomcat27 6y ago
  I am not disregarding the skepticism coming from that drama with LeCun.. In the email Jeff writes that the paper she wanted to submit conference review system did not meet Google's internal review standards. To me this looks really fishy! I did not read her work, but Google has conflict of interest in publishing this paper? If the paper is so out of date as Jeff writes, it will get rejected in conference review system. Reviewers are known for being brutal.. Perhaps she's right to call out BS here, probably not the way she did.
• omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  I don't think she's saying she's marginalized because she's a well known researcher who people listen to, she's saying she's marginalized because one or more people, who have their identities concealed, asked her to retract a paper she already published via HR. Granted, because the process she described is anonymous and opaque by design, it could have happened to other people at the company and only they, HR, and the people requesting/ordering the retraction would know about it. At the same time, if that's the case, then Google needs to stop that, because it looks really bad, especially when it involves a minority researcher who published a paper on how certain models Google uses may have some degree of discriminatory bias built into them. Imagine this: You’ve sent a paper for feedback to 30+ researchers, you’re awaiting feedback from PR & Policy who you gave a heads up before you even wrote the work saying “we’re thinking of doing this”, working on a revision plan figuring out how to address different feedback from people, haven’t heard from PR & Policy besides them asking you for updates (in 2 months). 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. Jeff Dean's response about mitigations being made to minimize the issues she highlighted could be justified too, but again, because the process she described is opaque, no one external to the process has any idea about the merits of the arguments raised.
  • 6y ago
• cdata 6y ago
  I'm partially sympathetic to this point of view. I agree that Timnit will ultimately be fine, despite what she is going through right now. I also agree that Google should ultimately do whatever it wants in accordance with its determined corporate policies. However, you really should read https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/ https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2004-ipo-letter/ Anyone who recalls this letter should be able to muster sympathy for those who have joined Google with an activist mindset. Google is supposed to be different. Google is supposed to be for people who want to make the world better. Sure, maybe it's all just so much branding, but this is how Google (and by extension many Googlers) styles itself. This news is more evidence that Google is really bad at living up to that image - as idealistic/lofty/unrealistic as it may be - where it counts. And any way, Timnit isn't toxic. She is upset with the status quo of equity among genders and ethnic groups in her field, and she is fighting to improve it. This is naturally unwelcome - and perhaps comes off as combative - to anyone who is satisfied with the status quo, but I would not call it toxic.
  • tinyhouse 6y ago
    I disagree. In one thread she responds with tweets such as: "“I’m sick of this framing. Tired of it. ", "Again. UNBELIEVABLE. , "tell your fanboys to stop trolling me". Basically she was telling Lecun he's an idiot of not agreeing with her. And pretty much everyone else who is not agreeing with her. Did you see Jeff Dean's email they just added to the article? Not surprisingly, she is doing the same thing. The reviewers are not agreeing with her and she is shocked how someone dares to reject her paper. She starts making demands to reveal who that was and sends an email to the Women AI list like it's some racist attack against her because she is a woman and black researcher. That's a toxic behavior of a very arrogant researcher. She clearly expects to get some preferential treatment because she is a big shot researcher or she just thinks she is smarter than everyone else. The irony.
    • cdata 6y ago
      The best and the brightest are elevated to positions of leadership because we trust them to lead the way. I am grateful that she knows her worth, and risked her own happiness for the sake of others. She is paying a short-term price for it because Google is struggling with fundamental corporate identity issues (such as whether or not it can live up to its self-image). In the long run, she will be vindicated. Where I come from, behavior like this is interpreted as - at worst - iconoclastic when exhibit by white, male leaders. I have found that it is rewarded more often than not when it happens in places I have worked at in the past. Also, just read some of her Twitter mentions - the fanboy harassment is real.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  "There's not even one sentence in her email about what is actually the content of her paper that is so controversial" From the Jeff Dean email it seems like the "cross-functional team" (read: includes people who are focused on company's bottom line, not the subject matter of the paper) wanted some sort of "fair balance" when discussing AI. He cites some examples. Does this mean if we review papers on AI from Google employees that Google has approved for publication in the past, we will consistently find this balanced view.
  • tinyhouse 6y ago
    They added Jeff's response later. I just read it. They thought the paper is missing important information and doesn't meet the bar. Fair point. That's why there's an internal review process. Her reaction was childish. She took it personally and emailed a rant to the Women list even though it has nothing to do with her being a woman, nor black. She also demanded to reveal the reviewers. (again it shows she is sure it was personal). All her public interactions so far show clearly what kind of person she is. She should join academia where she can publish whatever she wants. I'm sure she made a ton of money at Google and I wouldn't be surprised if she is going to milk more money from them via a lawsuit. She is a privileged woman.