5 ms·

Some links to specific comments here would help?

jeffbee 6y ago
https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1274809417653866496?lang=en https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1274809417653866496?l...
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Let us lead [here] (I'm assuming "her" was a typo) and you follow. Aggressive, sure, but also seems: a. reasonable for AI ethics experts to "lead" in issues surrounding AI ethics b. not the cardinal sin of discussion that it appears to be viewed as here. You'll see people here defending Linus or Elon Musk for saying objectively way worse stuff than this. Somehow Timnit is defined by this discussion, but Elon isn't defined by calling a rescue diver a pedophile with no evidence or Linus telling someone to kill themselves.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    OK, but imagine that you are the expert in your field and you have work for this person, who controls your career and compensation, who has a tendency to say that domain experts need to shut up and defer to her.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      If the domain is AI ethics, then Yann is not a domain expert, she is. Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. > the expert in your field and you have work for this person, who controls your career and compensation Must be harder when your CEO boss has a tendency to call domain experts pedophiles, yet I see Musk praised frequently here.
      - foogazi 6y ago
        > Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. Your description above sounds like gatekeeping to me - not saying that is the researcher’s intent - but it doesn’t seem to make for good science
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        I'm not the one saying people who criticize "domain experts" deserve to be fired. I think both are within the realm of discourse and shouldn't be retaliated against.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I think your sounds ask her actual reports what they think of her management (hint: essentially all of them have said "she's the best manager I've ever had" or the equivalent in the past week). If you work in an area that is written off, you need a strong advocate, and from everything I've seen, she was that strong advocate both for herself and for those who reported to her.
  - TearsInTheRain 6y ago
    > Even amidst of world wide protests people don’t hear our voices and try to learn from us, they assume they’re experts in everything. Let us lead her and you follow. Just listen. She says talking down to an actual expert in ML who gave an opinion on ML
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      Unclear what the usage of "actual expert" means in the context of an AI ethics question, when Timnit is an "actual expert" in AI ethics. I can see how this would get frustrating fast if your opinion is held among many Google engineers.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        "Ethics" does not really encompass the topic. The topic was that a net trained mostly on white people's faces upsamples a downsampled photo of a half-black man (Barack Obama) into a generic white face. LeCun's point is this is no surprise. If you trained it on leopards, it would upsample pixelated human faces into leopard faces instead. LeCun is an expert on how these nets work.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        And nowhere did Timnit disagree that the cause he identified was a cause of bias in the system. Her contention is that there are others, and reducing the problem to just "get better datatsets" is a bad idea (and a way for researchers to abdicate responsibility). To use an example that comes up: do we solve the ethical qualms of a system that predicts incarceration rate based on facial structure by getting a better dataset? Is it even ethical to attain such a "better" dataset, what does "better" even mean in the context?
        jeffbee 6y ago
        Not sure why you are being downvoted. I see how reasoned your response is to what I said. It is a clear contrast to how the AI ethics researcher engaged in the Twitter thread. Two totally different hypothetical conversations: A: Training data is a cause of this bias B: But not the only cause A: True vs. A: Training data is a cause of this bias B: I am so sick of this. You are not permitted to speak. A: I am deleting my Twitter account.

https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1274809417653866496?lang=en https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1274809417653866496?l...

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Let us lead [here] (I'm assuming "her" was a typo) and you follow. Aggressive, sure, but also seems: a. reasonable for AI ethics experts to "lead" in issues surrounding AI ethics b. not the cardinal sin of discussion that it appears to be viewed as here. You'll see people here defending Linus or Elon Musk for saying objectively way worse stuff than this. Somehow Timnit is defined by this discussion, but Elon isn't defined by calling a rescue diver a pedophile with no evidence or Linus telling someone to kill themselves.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  OK, but imagine that you are the expert in your field and you have work for this person, who controls your career and compensation, who has a tendency to say that domain experts need to shut up and defer to her.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    If the domain is AI ethics, then Yann is not a domain expert, she is. Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. > the expert in your field and you have work for this person, who controls your career and compensation Must be harder when your CEO boss has a tendency to call domain experts pedophiles, yet I see Musk praised frequently here.
    - foogazi 6y ago
      > Indeed, it seems like this exact expansion of Yann's "domain" is what she is frustrated by, and you are playing exactly into it. Your description above sounds like gatekeeping to me - not saying that is the researcher’s intent - but it doesn’t seem to make for good science
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        I'm not the one saying people who criticize "domain experts" deserve to be fired. I think both are within the realm of discourse and shouldn't be retaliated against.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    I think your sounds ask her actual reports what they think of her management (hint: essentially all of them have said "she's the best manager I've ever had" or the equivalent in the past week). If you work in an area that is written off, you need a strong advocate, and from everything I've seen, she was that strong advocate both for herself and for those who reported to her.
- TearsInTheRain 6y ago
  > Even amidst of world wide protests people don’t hear our voices and try to learn from us, they assume they’re experts in everything. Let us lead her and you follow. Just listen. She says talking down to an actual expert in ML who gave an opinion on ML
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    Unclear what the usage of "actual expert" means in the context of an AI ethics question, when Timnit is an "actual expert" in AI ethics. I can see how this would get frustrating fast if your opinion is held among many Google engineers.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      "Ethics" does not really encompass the topic. The topic was that a net trained mostly on white people's faces upsamples a downsampled photo of a half-black man (Barack Obama) into a generic white face. LeCun's point is this is no surprise. If you trained it on leopards, it would upsample pixelated human faces into leopard faces instead. LeCun is an expert on how these nets work.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        And nowhere did Timnit disagree that the cause he identified was a cause of bias in the system. Her contention is that there are others, and reducing the problem to just "get better datatsets" is a bad idea (and a way for researchers to abdicate responsibility). To use an example that comes up: do we solve the ethical qualms of a system that predicts incarceration rate based on facial structure by getting a better dataset? Is it even ethical to attain such a "better" dataset, what does "better" even mean in the context?
        jeffbee 6y ago
        Not sure why you are being downvoted. I see how reasoned your response is to what I said. It is a clear contrast to how the AI ethics researcher engaged in the Twitter thread. Two totally different hypothetical conversations: A: Training data is a cause of this bias B: But not the only cause A: True vs. A: Training data is a cause of this bias B: I am so sick of this. You are not permitted to speak. A: I am deleting my Twitter account.