6 ms·

This response really seems like gaslighting. He doesn't address her concerns and glosses over whether she was held to a different standard than others at GR.

bmitc 6y ago
He was also extremely vague, perhaps intentionally, about what the issue actually was. His sentence about when the paper was submitted and approved and all that is impossible to parse and make sense of who did what and when.
- sbarre 6y ago
  Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and obligations are, and I'm sure Google's lawyers are also getting all their ducks in a row. This is spin at best, gaslighting at worst. We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)..
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The point is to do foundational research, and to help Google ensure that its AI development complies with its own ethics. Google did try to set up an AI ethics board for accountability to the public, but it fell apart, because many segments of the public have ethical views which were seen as unacceptable. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial-ai-ethics-panel.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial...)
    - sbarre 6y ago
      I think you misunderstand. This is an HR matter, not an "Ethical AI" matter. The official outputs and products of that department should (hopefully) be public and shared, I 100% agree with you. But that's not what this is about. This matter in particular is an internal employee/employer dispute and dismissal, and is only public because of the high profile of the persons involved. And what I meant that we'll never get the full story is that these kinds of situations are always more complicated than they appear. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and are not privy to the history that led to this moment. These kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere. If I had to guess who's "more right" here, I'd side with Timnit, personally.. but again I don't have all the facts, so it's just a gut feeling based on what I know about how large enterprises work.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        If Exxon had a fracking safety department, it's goal would be to help Exxon sell it's fracking as safe.
ketzo 6y ago
Right -- he once again talks about "accepting" her resignation, when it reeeeeally just looks like they fired her. At the very least, she certainly feels like she was fired; why is that not mentioned at all? Even just, I don't know, "sorry we were abrupt?"
- vecter 6y ago
  Don't make ultimatums unless you're ready to accept the consequences of those ultimatums.
  - aylmao 6y ago
    > ...if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. To be fair it doesn't sound like her ultimatum was "I'll leave immediately"— that was forced on her by Google, and is an important detail.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Definitely. "If we don't fix this I don't think I can continue working here" is not a resignation, it's a negotiating position.
      - treis 6y ago
        Sure, but sending out an e-mail accusing your colleagues of racism, exhorting them to stop working, and talking about potential lawsuits isn't. There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that.
        aylmao 6y ago
        > exhorting them to stop working Perhaps it's just me as a URM, but her email resonated with me, especially this part. I see this position of calling what she did "exhorting them to stop working" often, but this isn't really what she did. I too care about DEI, but after putting lots of time and effort into it I saw how futile the effort was in my organization because there was real buy-in from higher ups. I was putting a lot of unrewarded volunteer work helping with "inclusivity" and talking about the problems/solutions, but that was all it was in the end for the people we needed action from; "talk". I did decide eventually to dial it back and stick to my actual paid job of programming, and although I didn't send an email to other people telling them their effort was being wasted, if someone came and asked me, I'd tell them to not bother. There's other places, usually further removed from the the company and easily PR-able channels, where the effort is better spent. In any case, I hope you realize your comment is full of hyperbole and the people who think she isn't in the wrong, myself included, aren't being unreasonable. We're smart people too. > There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that I agree. None of this comes as a surprise and I'm sure she expected it too; that doesn't mean Google is in the moral high ground.
cbsmith 6y ago
With such public communications, there really isn't much of a chance they'll be detailed and specific. It's why they are so rarely done.

bmitc 6y ago

He was also extremely vague, perhaps intentionally, about what the issue actually was. His sentence about when the paper was submitted and approved and all that is impossible to parse and make sense of who did what and when.

sbarre 6y ago
Of course he was vague. This just happened, tensions are high, and no doubt Timnit is talking to an employment lawyer to find out what both parties' right and obligations are, and I'm sure Google's lawyers are also getting all their ducks in a row. This is spin at best, gaslighting at worst. We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)..
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >We'll never get the full story (and should we? it is an internal company matter made public, after all)) Not really sure what the point of an 'ethical AI' department is when there's no transparency or accountability facing the public because if it can be cancelled internally at any point if it threatens the company you've basically recreated some kind of Soviet ministry for truth
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The point is to do foundational research, and to help Google ensure that its AI development complies with its own ethics. Google did try to set up an AI ethics board for accountability to the public, but it fell apart, because many segments of the public have ethical views which were seen as unacceptable. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial-ai-ethics-panel.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/04/google-cancels-controversial...)
  - sbarre 6y ago
    I think you misunderstand. This is an HR matter, not an "Ethical AI" matter. The official outputs and products of that department should (hopefully) be public and shared, I 100% agree with you. But that's not what this is about. This matter in particular is an internal employee/employer dispute and dismissal, and is only public because of the high profile of the persons involved. And what I meant that we'll never get the full story is that these kinds of situations are always more complicated than they appear. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and are not privy to the history that led to this moment. These kinds of things don't just happen out of nowhere. If I had to guess who's "more right" here, I'd side with Timnit, personally.. but again I don't have all the facts, so it's just a gut feeling based on what I know about how large enterprises work.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    If Exxon had a fracking safety department it's goal would be to help Exxon make fracking safer, not to call out Exxon for being an unsafe fracker.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      If Exxon had a fracking safety department, it's goal would be to help Exxon sell it's fracking as safe.

ketzo 6y ago

Right -- he once again talks about "accepting" her resignation, when it reeeeeally just looks like they fired her. At the very least, she certainly feels like she was fired; why is that not mentioned at all? Even just, I don't know, "sorry we were abrupt?"

vecter 6y ago
Don't make ultimatums unless you're ready to accept the consequences of those ultimatums.
- aylmao 6y ago
  > ...if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. To be fair it doesn't sound like her ultimatum was "I'll leave immediately"— that was forced on her by Google, and is an important detail.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Definitely. "If we don't fix this I don't think I can continue working here" is not a resignation, it's a negotiating position.
    - treis 6y ago
      Sure, but sending out an e-mail accusing your colleagues of racism, exhorting them to stop working, and talking about potential lawsuits isn't. There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that.
      - aylmao 6y ago
        > exhorting them to stop working Perhaps it's just me as a URM, but her email resonated with me, especially this part. I see this position of calling what she did "exhorting them to stop working" often, but this isn't really what she did. I too care about DEI, but after putting lots of time and effort into it I saw how futile the effort was in my organization because there was real buy-in from higher ups. I was putting a lot of unrewarded volunteer work helping with "inclusivity" and talking about the problems/solutions, but that was all it was in the end for the people we needed action from; "talk". I did decide eventually to dial it back and stick to my actual paid job of programming, and although I didn't send an email to other people telling them their effort was being wasted, if someone came and asked me, I'd tell them to not bother. There's other places, usually further removed from the the company and easily PR-able channels, where the effort is better spent. In any case, I hope you realize your comment is full of hyperbole and the people who think she isn't in the wrong, myself included, aren't being unreasonable. We're smart people too. > There's no way that Google (or any company) would continue to employ her after that I agree. None of this comes as a surprise and I'm sure she expected it too; that doesn't mean Google is in the moral high ground.

cbsmith 6y ago

With such public communications, there really isn't much of a chance they'll be detailed and specific. It's why they are so rarely done.