4 ms·

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 pe

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.

tinyhouse 6y ago
I didn't mean she is saying she's marginalized because she's a well known researcher. From her email: "Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized" She is not happy with the process and she is taking it personal. She was hired as a lead researcher and manages a big group and project. She has the nerve to say she is constantly dehumanized? 99% of Google employees would want to be in her position. Google is a big company with many good but also bad processes and policies (I never worked there). Instead of trying to make change she starts wars. Her thing with Lecun was exactly the same. The funny thing she said she hired a feminist lawyer to sue Google a year before! She still kept her job after that. What company does that? She is lucky she had an employer like Google.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  I'm not saying that you're saying that she's marginalized because she's a well known researcher. I think she feels marginalized because the process she's going through is dehumanizing, especially given the topic she wrote about (bias in AI frameworks). It's possible that 99% of Google employees would want to be in her position, but I think that's a bit high. I imagine even fewer would to be there after going through what she goes through, especially racism, which sucks. I can see how you would think she's confrontational. I think she is to some degree, but I don't think it's unfounded. She's a minority, and as such, has to deal with all of the explicit and systemic racism that's present in the US. She believes that there are intrinsic characteristics associated with the AI models used at Google that perpetuate the racism she has experienced. She was able to write a paper about the defects she believes were present in those models, which apparently passed whatever initial review processes are present at Google. Not long after that, someone at Google didn't like her paper and, through HR, used a "review" process, which isn't really a review process because there's no mechanism for her to discuss/debate anything with the reviewers, to effectively order her retract the paper under the guise of an anonymous review. In effect, Google may be perpetuating racism indirectly via problems with their AI models, and directly by silencing her work via a process that sounds like a peer review, but is really just a way for someone to anonymously order her to retract her work. I'd be angry too if my work implicitly supported frameworks that discriminated against me, and when I submitted valid criticism of those frameworks, my work ordered me to retract it under the guise of some anonymous review process.

tinyhouse 6y ago

I didn't mean she is saying she's marginalized because she's a well known researcher. From her email: "Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized" She is not happy with the process and she is taking it personal. She was hired as a lead researcher and manages a big group and project. She has the nerve to say she is constantly dehumanized? 99% of Google employees would want to be in her position. Google is a big company with many good but also bad processes and policies (I never worked there). Instead of trying to make change she starts wars. Her thing with Lecun was exactly the same. The funny thing she said she hired a feminist lawyer to sue Google a year before! She still kept her job after that. What company does that? She is lucky she had an employer like Google.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
I'm not saying that you're saying that she's marginalized because she's a well known researcher. I think she feels marginalized because the process she's going through is dehumanizing, especially given the topic she wrote about (bias in AI frameworks). It's possible that 99% of Google employees would want to be in her position, but I think that's a bit high. I imagine even fewer would to be there after going through what she goes through, especially racism, which sucks. I can see how you would think she's confrontational. I think she is to some degree, but I don't think it's unfounded. She's a minority, and as such, has to deal with all of the explicit and systemic racism that's present in the US. She believes that there are intrinsic characteristics associated with the AI models used at Google that perpetuate the racism she has experienced. She was able to write a paper about the defects she believes were present in those models, which apparently passed whatever initial review processes are present at Google. Not long after that, someone at Google didn't like her paper and, through HR, used a "review" process, which isn't really a review process because there's no mechanism for her to discuss/debate anything with the reviewers, to effectively order her retract the paper under the guise of an anonymous review. In effect, Google may be perpetuating racism indirectly via problems with their AI models, and directly by silencing her work via a process that sounds like a peer review, but is really just a way for someone to anonymously order her to retract her work. I'd be angry too if my work implicitly supported frameworks that discriminated against me, and when I submitted valid criticism of those frameworks, my work ordered me to retract it under the guise of some anonymous review process.