3 ms·

Does anyone have a link to the paper she was fired over? I've spent some time searching with no luck. I'd like to know what was technically controversial.

oh_sigh 6y ago
Saying she was fired over the paper is a leap without any evidence. It's possible her paper was perfectly benign, with minor issues, and she handled the response to the minor issues in a "we accept your resignation" kind of way. For an extreme example: I could say "I got tazed and arrested for doing 5 mph over the speed limit". That sounds insane. That cop should be fired and in jail! What I haven't told you is: I was doing 5 mph over the speed limit, and I was just going to get a warning from the cop, but I became combative and tried to physically fight the cop, at which point I got tazed and arrested. It's also possible she was fired for the paper. But she has published many papers while at Google without issue, so it would have to be something stunningly different than her previous papers.
visarga 6y ago
Just the abstract: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_the_abstract_of_the_paper_that_led_to_timnit/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t...
- jeffbee 6y ago
  This abstract doesn't really grab me by the frontal lobe. Is it possible the internal reviewers just thought the paper sucked?
uponcoffee 6y ago
As i understand it, she was supposed to submit to google for an internal review a fews prior to externally publishing it. She simultaneously submitted and published it, and Google sought a retraction after internal review. She met that with an ultimatum with do X or I'll quit. They took that as a resignation (as Google wasn't going to do X), and accepted it. I'm not fully informed about what she wanted, but I don't think it was particularly unreasonable, the controversy more has to do with headlines and spotlights about this person and her conduct/history in the past.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
She was not fired. She made an ultimatum, and Google called it.
_Wintermute 6y ago
I got the impression that the paper wasn't the controversial part, but rather how both sides handled the internal peer review. Which amounted to her offering her resignation which Google accepted.

oh_sigh 6y ago

Saying she was fired over the paper is a leap without any evidence. It's possible her paper was perfectly benign, with minor issues, and she handled the response to the minor issues in a "we accept your resignation" kind of way. For an extreme example: I could say "I got tazed and arrested for doing 5 mph over the speed limit". That sounds insane. That cop should be fired and in jail! What I haven't told you is: I was doing 5 mph over the speed limit, and I was just going to get a warning from the cop, but I became combative and tried to physically fight the cop, at which point I got tazed and arrested. It's also possible she was fired for the paper. But she has published many papers while at Google without issue, so it would have to be something stunningly different than her previous papers.

visarga 6y ago

Just the abstract: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_the_abstract_of_the_paper_that_led_to_timnit/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t...

jeffbee 6y ago
This abstract doesn't really grab me by the frontal lobe. Is it possible the internal reviewers just thought the paper sucked?

uponcoffee 6y ago

As i understand it, she was supposed to submit to google for an internal review a fews prior to externally publishing it. She simultaneously submitted and published it, and Google sought a retraction after internal review. She met that with an ultimatum with do X or I'll quit. They took that as a resignation (as Google wasn't going to do X), and accepted it. I'm not fully informed about what she wanted, but I don't think it was particularly unreasonable, the controversy more has to do with headlines and spotlights about this person and her conduct/history in the past.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

She was not fired. She made an ultimatum, and Google called it.

_Wintermute 6y ago

I got the impression that the paper wasn't the controversial part, but rather how both sides handled the internal peer review. Which amounted to her offering her resignation which Google accepted.