3 ms·

I have to say, this idea that we should assume the best of the large corporate entity to the detriment of the very real human person until "we know more context

I have to say, this idea that we should assume the best of the large corporate entity to the detriment of the very real human person until "we know more context" strikes me as shockingly and painfully naive. Is the assumption here that Google is somehow better behaved than other corporations? I don't think there's any factual basis for such thinking. In my experience, corporations are laser focused on money, quarter-by-quarter, with little to no concern for the human cost. Google has been asked for comment and has consistently declined, in my opinion we should give much more weight to the real person here. We all have much more in common with the AI researcher than the large, faceless corporate entity. If we are at all principled, it's easy to imagine ourselves in a similar situation. Why the hand-wringing over this email they sent, the suspicion that it was all "hardball negotiating" and "bluffing"? The email to the mailing list pretty clearly outlines their concerns and reaction to Google, it seems a pretty safe assumption that their email to Google management covers much the same information.[0] This idea that they are bluffing strikes me as insulting: is there any reason to suspect they are bluffing? I don't see that in any of the coverage, by my reading this person felt this back-and-forth over the publication of this paper at the last minute was the last straw, their exasperation and frustration with Google is clear. It seems to me they were entirely willing to resign. [0]: https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-an-ethical https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

describe24 6y ago
Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter. She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. All those people don't put Google first. The hard truth is that she was probably extremely unpleasant to work with it (this is my reading of the above link and from what I've witnessed on Twitter) and they had just reached their limits. Not Google, but the people that had to work with her (I'm clearly not referring to her subordinates who are all apparently "indebted" to her which is a whole other issue onto itself). She comes across as very entitled and quite frankly, although I hate to say it as it's a bit of a cliche at this point, narcissistic. These are all based on what I've been able to find online. I've never met her in person. I'm trying very hard to not see her negatively but it's also hard finding evidence that's she's not hostile to those that don't 100% accept and agree with her. I'm definitely open to seeing her in a different light if anyone wants to share links. However, just because you research ethics doesn't mean you practice what you preach nor that you're a saint who can do no wrong.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- temac 6y ago
  > She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. Would that be somehow bad? I'm not even entirely sure of what does that even mean. If I submit a resignation letter, I don't even expect it to be rejected, engineers and researchers are not some kind of ministers. At most some people can consult each others and ponder if its worth to attempt to retain her, but even then the concept is not entirely one of "I/we don't accept your resignation letter"...
  - describe24 6y ago
    I don't think it's bad, I included it to further point out that her resignation wasn't the result of just one person deciding they would prefer she left. But that multiple people agreed that it would be best to accept her resignation. Which in turn, implies many people considered her work conduct inappropriate. If it had just been Jeff Dean, then I may have more sympathy for her case as clearly, that comes across much more personal and unfair, especially if no one else agrees.
- cloudfiend 6y ago
  You are spot on!

describe24 6y ago

Most people aren't responding because they're defending the actions of a "large corporate entity". They're relating to the people, such as Jeff Dean, that made that decision. A decision that definitely wasn't taken lightly. The people that had to work closely with her, with whom she has publicly ridiculed on Twitter. She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. All those people don't put Google first. The hard truth is that she was probably extremely unpleasant to work with it (this is my reading of the above link and from what I've witnessed on Twitter) and they had just reached their limits. Not Google, but the people that had to work with her (I'm clearly not referring to her subordinates who are all apparently "indebted" to her which is a whole other issue onto itself). She comes across as very entitled and quite frankly, although I hate to say it as it's a bit of a cliche at this point, narcissistic. These are all based on what I've been able to find online. I've never met her in person. I'm trying very hard to not see her negatively but it's also hard finding evidence that's she's not hostile to those that don't 100% accept and agree with her. I'm definitely open to seeing her in a different light if anyone wants to share links. However, just because you research ethics doesn't mean you practice what you preach nor that you're a saint who can do no wrong.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
temac 6y ago
> She's even tweeted that she suspects there was a team of people behind the decision to accept her resignation. Would that be somehow bad? I'm not even entirely sure of what does that even mean. If I submit a resignation letter, I don't even expect it to be rejected, engineers and researchers are not some kind of ministers. At most some people can consult each others and ponder if its worth to attempt to retain her, but even then the concept is not entirely one of "I/we don't accept your resignation letter"...
- describe24 6y ago
  I don't think it's bad, I included it to further point out that her resignation wasn't the result of just one person deciding they would prefer she left. But that multiple people agreed that it would be best to accept her resignation. Which in turn, implies many people considered her work conduct inappropriate. If it had just been Jeff Dean, then I may have more sympathy for her case as clearly, that comes across much more personal and unfair, especially if no one else agrees.
cloudfiend 6y ago
You are spot on!