6 ms·
So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do s
by claudeganon 6y ago
So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do something or you’ll quit, this is bad and makes you unemployable.
You realize that this is just an argument that whoever is in a position of authority over you is right by virtue of having that authority?
- tantalor 6y agoIt's called "insubordination".
- loopz 6y agoIs insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals? Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher? Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?
- jollofricepeas 6y agoGood point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion. https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”
- tertius 6y ago> She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets. What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?
- loopz 6y agoWe haven't heard any arguments, only that management can do as they please when they don't like results of AI Ethics Research. We'll likely not get anything substantial, ever, either. As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google. OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.
- tertius 6y agoWhat is the strongest argument that you can come up with? Not that's been presented.
- loopz 6y agoMy strongest argument is AGAINST managers at Google getting to micromanage, censor and to revenge-fire a researcher, just because they personally disagree with their published AI Ethics Research. A job said researcher was tasked with and leading. Such behaviour, unless corrected, undermines Google's entire AI/ML and cloud operations.
- tertius 6y agoThat's not what I asked. If you can't argue the counter of your own position in the most honest way possible then either you're not prepared or not honest. It's called steel manning.
- loopz 6y agoThe best rebuttal so far has been to decline to comment. However, without revealing names the paper outlines internal company matters, presenting opinions and tautology that do not fit proper format of professionally published research. Instead of reworking a flawed paper, the researcher escalated and exposed individual opinion, publicly. Such company representation is out of scope for research positions. As Google could not agree to terms of email, it was taken as resignation notice.
- lostjohnny 6y agoDoesn't that apply only to soldiers? Does Google really consider its employers soldiers that have to obey to orders?
- romanoderoma 6y agoDo Google employers work in barracks?
- rfrey 6y agoWithout commenting on the politics of this particular case, I think what you describe is built into the definition of "boss".
- claudeganon 6y agoNot universally though. In countries with stronger labor protections and unions, you can’t just fire people for philosophical disagreements (not without those disputes being mediated anyway). I don’t understand how we arrived at some conception of workplaces as little dictatorships, where bosses can treat people however they want and that’s somehow good or legitimate.
- tertius 6y agoA boss controls the work that you, via a contract, agreed to do. If you want out of the contract the boss cannot make you do the work. You have agency, they cannot threaten you with violence as a dictator could.
- metabagel 6y agoManagers are supposed to exercise power on behalf of the company. In this case, it’s unclear whether the manager was exercising power in the best interests of the company or of himself. In my opinion, might doesn’t make right. Managers aren’t de facto right purely by virtue of being a manager.
- tertius 6y agoReally depends on your definition of right. Do you mean legally? Morally? Logically? When it comes to who has the ability to steer subordinates, managers are always right. Except if their managers disagree...
- claudeganon 6y agoSo just blanket appeals to authoritarianism then. Completely rational.
- rafiki6 6y agoAs much as I support employment rights, you are paid by a company to do their bidding. If you don't like it start a company, but then you're just doing the bidding of the customer.
- claudeganon 6y agoThis is a uniquely American notion of employment. “Do my bidding or be done away with” is not the norm across countries with strong unions and worker protections.
- tertius 6y agoNo, this is not uniquely American. Which country are you from that doesn't require employees to act in a way as directed by the company that employs them?
- claudeganon 6y agoLiterally any country with strong laws protecting strikes and work stoppages? In many parts of Europe, I can convince my coworkers that our bosses are treating us unfairly, unsafely, etc, we can walk off the job and not get fired. I doubt any employer would want us to do that, so it would be entirely against their “direction.”
- tertius 6y ago"Do my bidding" is different from "do my bidding being paid way below market rate" or "do my bidding and I don't care if that involves a high likelihood of losing a limb". Also, "do my bidding" should be written as "do your job." I'm from a country with strong labor protections (striking, 3 strike dismissal etc.), and you're moving the goalposts.
- thu2111 6y agoJust to clarify, in many parts of Europe you cannot do that, you would need to be a recognised union and in many cases at least hold a vote of some sort, there would probably also be requirements around negotiations. You would also be restricted in what you do to people who refuse to join your strike. The UK is an example of a European country with relatively tough union laws. The list of issues that it's legitimate to strike over is restricted, votes are required, the general secretary of the union must authorise the strike and so on. Strikes do happen of course but not because some random middle manager threw a hissy fit about feedback on a paper she wrote.
- miked85 6y agoGiving ultimatums and threatening to quit generally isn't a good way to remain employed with any company.
- whynotminot 6y ago> So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. Gonna take a quick guess you're still in undergrad. Yes, this is literally how employment works. Your future boss's job will be to use your labor efficiently for the company. You may disagree with your boss on an assignment, in which case it would be wise to schedule some time and professionally discuss your concerns. Your boss may be persuaded, and good bosses will try their best, within reason, to keep their subordinates content with the work they're doing. However, at the end of the day, the boss may disagree with your points and still require you to do the job as assigned. If you refuse, you will likely be fired. Note that you also have agency here: If you don't like the work the boss makes you do, and you feel like your concerns are consistently falling on deaf ears, you can quit.