4 ms·

A draft copy of the disputed paper was posted over in Reddit, if this is of interest to anyone: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_timn

A draft copy of the disputed paper was posted over in Reddit, if this is of interest to anyone: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_timnit_gebru_and_google_megathread/gepcliq https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t... https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF

muglug 6y ago
Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, that’s exactly the sort of paper one might expect to be written by someone whose job title includes the words “ethics” and “AI”. I’m not sure what Google expected.
- paperdropper 6y ago
  The other curious thing is, behind the pink-boxed redactions are the names of four other Google employees. I'm wondering why they haven't been reprimanded in the same way. At least, not that we know of.
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    Maybe unlike the hero of the story they refrained from making racist, misandric remarks about their bosses on Twitter?
  - that_guy_iain 6y ago
    Well, she wasn't reprimanded for writing the paper nor for publishing it. In fact, she wasn't even reprimanded as far as I know for telling other employees to stop working on DEI. She told them she wanted confidental information or she will quit on a date she would like. They said they would not give her that information and that she is no longer welcome at the company. This isn't really reprimanding or even a normal firing. If I tell my boss do X or I quit and they say "Thanks for your work, we accept your resigination and the legal notice period applies." Fair play.
    - paperdropper 6y ago
      > She told them she wanted confidental information I understand this is only because upper management had chosen to anonymize their review of the paper, which is apparently quite unusual in Google.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  What stood out to you?
  - Aunche 6y ago
    The whole paper doesn't go beyond surface-level analysis. The main point is that language models reflect the same biases as its training data. Very little of it is technical. Most of it is about examples of how language models aren't as politically correct as the authors want it to be (e.g. calling female doctors "female doctors" when it's not relevant to the context). It's a legitimate concern, but anyone who remembered Microsoft Tay would know that.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  the paper was not the problem, her attitude & reaction to peer review was the problem - giving ultimatums, demanding to disclose names of the reviewers, and broadcasting emails to entire team calling for sabotage. Her behavior fits the definition of 'toxic employee', it was unprofessional by any standard.
hadrien01 6y ago
Pink squares used to hide the authors, but the names are still written behind in the PDF...
samizdis 6y ago
I'd been looking for that. Thanks for posting.
gok 6y ago
She wasn't fired over the paper. She was fired because she demanded Google name the employees who gave (anonymous) negative feedback about the paper, and that anyone going forward who gave feedback on her work also be named, or she'd quit.
- ffghhhg 6y ago
  I totally disagree with her sacking.
Aunche 6y ago
> As shown in the amount of compute used to train deep learning models has increased 300,000x in 6 years, increasing at a far higher pace than Moore’s Law which posits that the amount of computation that can be done per unit area would roughly double every two years. This means that power consumption per unit area is not staying constant as implied by Moore’s Law [108]. IIRC Moore's law doesn't make any predictions about power consumption at all, let alone ones meriting being cited in a scientific paper.
- dekhn 6y ago
  yeah, I've debunked this particular line as being technically nonsense. If I were a reviewer of the paper, reaching a sentence like that, I'd return to the editor with "revise and resubmit- this doesn't meet the basic technical level of expertise we require for publication." if you build 2X the compute capacity with current nodes, you didn't violate moore's law.

muglug 6y ago

Whether or not I agree with the conclusions, that’s exactly the sort of paper one might expect to be written by someone whose job title includes the words “ethics” and “AI”. I’m not sure what Google expected.

paperdropper 6y ago
The other curious thing is, behind the pink-boxed redactions are the names of four other Google employees. I'm wondering why they haven't been reprimanded in the same way. At least, not that we know of.
- bitcharmer 6y ago
  Maybe unlike the hero of the story they refrained from making racist, misandric remarks about their bosses on Twitter?
- that_guy_iain 6y ago
  Well, she wasn't reprimanded for writing the paper nor for publishing it. In fact, she wasn't even reprimanded as far as I know for telling other employees to stop working on DEI. She told them she wanted confidental information or she will quit on a date she would like. They said they would not give her that information and that she is no longer welcome at the company. This isn't really reprimanding or even a normal firing. If I tell my boss do X or I quit and they say "Thanks for your work, we accept your resigination and the legal notice period applies." Fair play.
  - paperdropper 6y ago
    > She told them she wanted confidental information I understand this is only because upper management had chosen to anonymize their review of the paper, which is apparently quite unusual in Google.
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
What stood out to you?
- Aunche 6y ago
  The whole paper doesn't go beyond surface-level analysis. The main point is that language models reflect the same biases as its training data. Very little of it is technical. Most of it is about examples of how language models aren't as politically correct as the authors want it to be (e.g. calling female doctors "female doctors" when it's not relevant to the context). It's a legitimate concern, but anyone who remembered Microsoft Tay would know that.
bra-ket 6y ago
the paper was not the problem, her attitude & reaction to peer review was the problem - giving ultimatums, demanding to disclose names of the reviewers, and broadcasting emails to entire team calling for sabotage. Her behavior fits the definition of 'toxic employee', it was unprofessional by any standard.

hadrien01 6y ago

Pink squares used to hide the authors, but the names are still written behind in the PDF...

samizdis 6y ago

I'd been looking for that. Thanks for posting.

gok 6y ago

She wasn't fired over the paper. She was fired because she demanded Google name the employees who gave (anonymous) negative feedback about the paper, and that anyone going forward who gave feedback on her work also be named, or she'd quit.

ffghhhg 6y ago
I totally disagree with her sacking.

Aunche 6y ago

> As shown in the amount of compute used to train deep learning models has increased 300,000x in 6 years, increasing at a far higher pace than Moore’s Law which posits that the amount of computation that can be done per unit area would roughly double every two years. This means that power consumption per unit area is not staying constant as implied by Moore’s Law [108]. IIRC Moore's law doesn't make any predictions about power consumption at all, let alone ones meriting being cited in a scientific paper.

dekhn 6y ago
yeah, I've debunked this particular line as being technically nonsense. If I were a reviewer of the paper, reaching a sentence like that, I'd return to the editor with "revise and resubmit- this doesn't meet the basic technical level of expertise we require for publication." if you build 2X the compute capacity with current nodes, you didn't violate moore's law.