5 ms·

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities

> Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback It always amazes how blatantly authoritarian these "woke" types are. I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of every consultant was to engage in some sort of witch-hunting and bigoteering[0] [0] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigoteering https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bigoteering

foota 6y ago
I can imagine she felt helpless when her work was being blocked. Imagine you were going to start a project and was told someone in your org was against it and that you couldn't do it as a result.
- kevinskii 6y ago
  That pretty much sums up every employee/employer relationship, and it isn't a bad thing.
- throawaydmg 6y ago
  Maybe take a step back, consider the possibility that you may be wrong, and if you still think you are right, then attack their ideas and arguments, instead of acting entitled and demanding to know who said this or that. Like PG wrote, the worst thing you can say about an idea is that it is wrong, you don't need to resort to personal attacks or x-isms.
  - foota 6y ago
    Are you replying to the right person?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Orthw2020 6y ago
That is the only reason. If your entire career is built around solving a problem, then actually solving it is against your personal best interest.
bnj 6y ago
Isn’t it pretty normal to ask to “face your accuser” and engage with feedback specifically, instead of an anonymous and unassailable red stamp?
- dekhn 6y ago
  That's in court, or whatever, not academic or industrial anonymous peer review.
- sidlls 6y ago
  In the context of peer review it’s common, or at least not uncommon, for reviewers to be anonymous. Personally I think it should be completely blind both directions to promote maximum objectivity. Whether that applies at all in this case is a separate matter.
  - fatbird 6y ago
    True, but it's also the norm that peer reviewer's feedback is provided to allow the author the address issues. In Timnit's account, she received neither identities nor the feedback itself.
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      This is incorrect, she did receive the feedback, then demanded the source to be deanonimized.
      - sidlls 6y ago
        Yes, that’s what I understood. It’s a completely inappropriate request really. And a scientist should understand that.
      - fatbird 6y ago
        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... 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. According to her account, she was not given the feedback when she was told that the paper had to be retracted. After discussion, she was told her manager would read her the feedback without telling her who wrote it or what process was followed. This is different than a normal peer review process that, anonymous or not, aims to provide feedback to the author so they can incorporate it.
jsmith12673 6y ago
I would caution you by saying that no quote, paraphrase, or evidence of exactly what Timnit said. Since this is Google's side of the story its in their interest to use words that would imply she's overbearing, or otherwise unaccommodating (for all I know she could be all of those things, but this narration isn't sufficient evidence to prove that)
root_axis 6y ago
Woke politics is a red-herring. Google is typically cool with woke politics, as "anti-sjw" types are usually quick to point out. If you take it out of the culture-war context its a lot easier to see what this story is all about.
harrylove 6y ago
I wonder if stories like these should be off-limits for accounts that were created specifically to spread FUD. Several accounts just like this one appeared simultaneously in one of the other submissions as well. They added nothing to the discussion other than to make ad hominem attacks on Gebru. We’re seeing the same thing here. edit: typo
deeviant 6y ago
Authoritarian? Please. You seem to be confused. > I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of every consultant was to engage in some sort of witch-hunting and bigoteering[0] Right...
brown9-2 6y ago
Do you work in an environment where design or code review feedback is anonymous? So why would it be the case for internal peer review of a paper?

foota 6y ago

I can imagine she felt helpless when her work was being blocked. Imagine you were going to start a project and was told someone in your org was against it and that you couldn't do it as a result.

kevinskii 6y ago
That pretty much sums up every employee/employer relationship, and it isn't a bad thing.
throawaydmg 6y ago
Maybe take a step back, consider the possibility that you may be wrong, and if you still think you are right, then attack their ideas and arguments, instead of acting entitled and demanding to know who said this or that. Like PG wrote, the worst thing you can say about an idea is that it is wrong, you don't need to resort to personal attacks or x-isms.
- foota 6y ago
  Are you replying to the right person?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Orthw2020 6y ago

That is the only reason. If your entire career is built around solving a problem, then actually solving it is against your personal best interest.

bnj 6y ago

Isn’t it pretty normal to ask to “face your accuser” and engage with feedback specifically, instead of an anonymous and unassailable red stamp?

dekhn 6y ago
That's in court, or whatever, not academic or industrial anonymous peer review.
sidlls 6y ago
In the context of peer review it’s common, or at least not uncommon, for reviewers to be anonymous. Personally I think it should be completely blind both directions to promote maximum objectivity. Whether that applies at all in this case is a separate matter.
- fatbird 6y ago
  True, but it's also the norm that peer reviewer's feedback is provided to allow the author the address issues. In Timnit's account, she received neither identities nor the feedback itself.
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    This is incorrect, she did receive the feedback, then demanded the source to be deanonimized.
    - sidlls 6y ago
      Yes, that’s what I understood. It’s a completely inappropriate request really. And a scientist should understand that.
    - fatbird 6y ago
      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... 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. According to her account, she was not given the feedback when she was told that the paper had to be retracted. After discussion, she was told her manager would read her the feedback without telling her who wrote it or what process was followed. This is different than a normal peer review process that, anonymous or not, aims to provide feedback to the author so they can incorporate it.

jsmith12673 6y ago

I would caution you by saying that no quote, paraphrase, or evidence of exactly what Timnit said. Since this is Google's side of the story its in their interest to use words that would imply she's overbearing, or otherwise unaccommodating (for all I know she could be all of those things, but this narration isn't sufficient evidence to prove that)

root_axis 6y ago

Woke politics is a red-herring. Google is typically cool with woke politics, as "anti-sjw" types are usually quick to point out. If you take it out of the culture-war context its a lot easier to see what this story is all about.

harrylove 6y ago

I wonder if stories like these should be off-limits for accounts that were created specifically to spread FUD. Several accounts just like this one appeared simultaneously in one of the other submissions as well. They added nothing to the discussion other than to make ad hominem attacks on Gebru. We’re seeing the same thing here. edit: typo

deeviant 6y ago

Authoritarian? Please. You seem to be confused. > I would not be surprised if the sole reason she wanted the identities of every consultant was to engage in some sort of witch-hunting and bigoteering[0] Right...

brown9-2 6y ago

Do you work in an environment where design or code review feedback is anonymous? So why would it be the case for internal peer review of a paper?