5 ms·

believe Google vs believe a solitary worker (female, black, known political agenda)

by chishaku 6y ago

alisonkisk 6y ago
What's your point? Jeff Dean is a solitary worker (male, white, known political agenda).
- pinewurst 6y ago
  What is his political agenda then, if you know it? (Possession/absence of Y chromosome/melanin does not constitute such.)
  - zepto 6y ago
    Protect Google.
    - pinewurst 6y ago
      While that may be a self-interested professional agenda (they pay him an obscene salary), that's hardly politics.
      - zepto 6y ago
        AI ethics is politics. Google is one of the largest players in AI, not to mention one of the largest companies in the world, and the focus politics surrounding Tech in general. Defending Google’s AI ethics is politics.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> believe Google vs believe a solitary worker But it's not a solitary worker, many Google AI workers have spoken up and said that even if the management narrative is true as to what happened in the specific case, it would represent a radically different review process — both as to what the review looked at and the request to retract rather than correct when there was a plenty of time for corrections for the conference — than is applied in Google AI research to other workers. This strongly suggests that even if Google's incident-specific behavioral narrative is true as far as it goes that the entire incident was constructed as personally-targeted harassment, and that the narrative about qualitative motivations and regular process are false.
- chishaku 6y ago
  Good point, I agree. My implication was that in the absence of all the facts, many are making a deliberate choice to believe one side or the other. As far as this specific community, I'm not surprised that many (not all) take Google at their word.
  - zepto 6y ago
    What facts do you think are missing, and what do you mean by ‘a deliberate choice to believe one side or the other’?
    - chishaku 6y ago
      Most of the circumstances around the firing are hearsay. My weakly-held assessment agrees with your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316014 The following comment and thread demonstrate how many in the HN community reflexively defend Google. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25320745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25320745
      - zepto 6y ago
        Interesting. It seems like we share an overall impression of what is going on. It seems to me that ‘reflexive’ and ‘deliberate’ are contradictory adjectives when assessing people’s responses.

believe Google vs believe a solitary worker (female, black, known political agenda)

alisonkisk 6y ago

What's your point? Jeff Dean is a solitary worker (male, white, known political agenda).

pinewurst 6y ago
What is his political agenda then, if you know it? (Possession/absence of Y chromosome/melanin does not constitute such.)
- zepto 6y ago
  Protect Google.
  - pinewurst 6y ago
    While that may be a self-interested professional agenda (they pay him an obscene salary), that's hardly politics.
    - zepto 6y ago
      AI ethics is politics. Google is one of the largest players in AI, not to mention one of the largest companies in the world, and the focus politics surrounding Tech in general. Defending Google’s AI ethics is politics.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> believe Google vs believe a solitary worker But it's not a solitary worker, many Google AI workers have spoken up and said that even if the management narrative is true as to what happened in the specific case, it would represent a radically different review process — both as to what the review looked at and the request to retract rather than correct when there was a plenty of time for corrections for the conference — than is applied in Google AI research to other workers. This strongly suggests that even if Google's incident-specific behavioral narrative is true as far as it goes that the entire incident was constructed as personally-targeted harassment, and that the narrative about qualitative motivations and regular process are false.

chishaku 6y ago
Good point, I agree. My implication was that in the absence of all the facts, many are making a deliberate choice to believe one side or the other. As far as this specific community, I'm not surprised that many (not all) take Google at their word.
- zepto 6y ago
  What facts do you think are missing, and what do you mean by ‘a deliberate choice to believe one side or the other’?
  - chishaku 6y ago
    Most of the circumstances around the firing are hearsay. My weakly-held assessment agrees with your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25316014 The following comment and thread demonstrate how many in the HN community reflexively defend Google. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25320745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25320745
    - zepto 6y ago
      Interesting. It seems like we share an overall impression of what is going on. It seems to me that ‘reflexive’ and ‘deliberate’ are contradictory adjectives when assessing people’s responses.