4 ms·

Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work

Can I ask with the upmost politeness what is going on? I genuinely went into this considering that this was someone who is essentially decrying that normal work difficulties are sexism or racism. But I'm now finding that the procedure claimed actually essentially doesn't exist or if it did it was never enforced until now. What is going on? If this was an issue of the researcher unprofessionally airing her frustrations on a listserv with direct reports that's one thing. It's another thing to say being upset at all was an overreaction because the treatment was totally normal and that her frustration was a resignation, when in fact, none of that is true in any good faith interpretation.

brandmeyer 6y ago
The reality is that none of us have any idea what's going on. There's a bunch of employee-said/employer-said going on, with leaks to the press and rants on Twitter, but nobody has the whole picture. Plenty of people are willing to make guesses based on the fragments they have combined with their own biases, though. Searching in HN under "Gebru" (the employee's last name) pulls up a bunch of past threads.
- worker767424 6y ago
  The other bit I'd add is Google will be silent externally for legal reasons, and not to read into that. The internal messaging was likely truthy and omitted things. Timnit Gebru also omitted some important things in her twitter posts.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Google wasn't silent externally however. Jeff Dean wrote an article on the subject on Google's blog.
SullyGoober 6y ago
It depends on who you ask: 1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up. 2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to be a minority race and/or female in the tech industry. 3) Still others will say: This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism. 4) Another line of thought that is a variant of #1: This is about an employee who did not follow company rules and processes. She was fired as a result. The statements privately and publicly about "resignation" were an attempt to not publicly disparage her Did I miss any others? With a nod to the Rashomon Principle, your interpretation of these events depends on your perspective.
- morelisp 6y ago
  > This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism. Sounds like a perfect fit for Google's new Chief Legal Officer. Or maybe SVP Social!
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).
  - SullyGoober 6y ago
    This is a very charged subject, akin to a political discussion. I am not surprised if it gets more downvotes. That is why I made an anonymous account. Pick the "wrong" side and now all your opinions are suspect.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- j64mt41ebg 6y ago
  My take: Google and the researcher had some issues around internal review of a paper that could be perceived as criticism of Google. Google ordered her to withdraw the paper from review at an external event. The researcher demanded to know names of the internal Google reviewers. The researcher said she will resign on a later date if her demands are not fulfilled. Google did not reveal the internal reviewers and let her go immediately.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  5) A variant of 4. She gave notice. Google must have put her on gardening leave. Firing her would just give her a chance to sue. Google wouldn't make that mistake.
djeikyb 6y ago
Journalists got access to an early version of Gebru’s paper and reported on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...
- KittenInABox 6y ago
  I'm aware of that and, to my bafflement, the paper isn't even that bad! It looks like fairly bog-standard "huh, ok" work. I have no idea why it would be requested to be retracted completely with no ability to simply revise/resubmit or to allow the academic peer review procedure, a move that from what I understand from other googlers is completely out of line with the norm there. This whole thing is a confusing mess.
- barbacoa 6y ago
  >>"the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, for example, have tried to establish a new anti-sexist and anti-racist vocabulary. An AI model trained on vast swaths of the internet won’t be attuned to the nuances of this vocabulary and won’t produce or interpret language in line with these new cultural norms." It's terrifying that these are the kind of views people in high places of major tech companies have. And that we are entrusting our tools of societal communication to those who see themselves as fighting in a culture war.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Yeah. That's the real story here and a very interesting one, but journalists would rather commit suicide than cover it.
lsiebert 6y ago
Basically google (edit: I should say executives at Google, 1500 other googlers have signed a petition supporting her) wanted her to retract her (and 7 co-authors) ethics paper, wouldn't give her clear reasons or work with her on it, and then fired her when she objected to that and other ways it wasn't living up to it's commitments.
- j64mt41ebg 6y ago
  She not only objected, but made it a deal breaker. She clearly said that she will resign on a later date if her demands are not meet. Google let her go immediately.
ffggvv 6y ago
google hired someone solely for their physical characteristics and then got shocked when they used their identity against google and bit the hand that feeds.

brandmeyer 6y ago

The reality is that none of us have any idea what's going on. There's a bunch of employee-said/employer-said going on, with leaks to the press and rants on Twitter, but nobody has the whole picture. Plenty of people are willing to make guesses based on the fragments they have combined with their own biases, though. Searching in HN under "Gebru" (the employee's last name) pulls up a bunch of past threads.

worker767424 6y ago
The other bit I'd add is Google will be silent externally for legal reasons, and not to read into that. The internal messaging was likely truthy and omitted things. Timnit Gebru also omitted some important things in her twitter posts.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Google wasn't silent externally however. Jeff Dean wrote an article on the subject on Google's blog.

SullyGoober 6y ago

It depends on who you ask: 1) If you ask me, this is a story about an influential technology company, one whose approach to business has an outsized influence on the entire industry, has unethically fired an employee while making mis-statements to cover it up. 2) Others will say: this is about a ethicist being unfairly treated with different standards because of her gender and race, a microcosm of what it is like to be a minority race and/or female in the tech industry. 3) Still others will say: This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism. 4) Another line of thought that is a variant of #1: This is about an employee who did not follow company rules and processes. She was fired as a result. The statements privately and publicly about "resignation" were an attempt to not publicly disparage her Did I miss any others? With a nod to the Rashomon Principle, your interpretation of these events depends on your perspective.

morelisp 6y ago
> This is about an employee who disrupted the workplace. She rudely interacted with her colleagues and prominent names outside of the industry (Y. Lecun). She prevented collaboration by making spurious claims of sexism and racism. Sounds like a perfect fit for Google's new Chief Legal Officer. Or maybe SVP Social!
ciarannolan 6y ago
I feel strongly that it was one particular option that you listed, but I think this is a fair assessment. Wonder why it's being downvoted (maybe I'm missing something from this story too).
- SullyGoober 6y ago
  This is a very charged subject, akin to a political discussion. I am not surprised if it gets more downvotes. That is why I made an anonymous account. Pick the "wrong" side and now all your opinions are suspect.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
j64mt41ebg 6y ago
My take: Google and the researcher had some issues around internal review of a paper that could be perceived as criticism of Google. Google ordered her to withdraw the paper from review at an external event. The researcher demanded to know names of the internal Google reviewers. The researcher said she will resign on a later date if her demands are not fulfilled. Google did not reveal the internal reviewers and let her go immediately.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pseudalopex 6y ago
5) A variant of 4. She gave notice. Google must have put her on gardening leave. Firing her would just give her a chance to sue. Google wouldn't make that mistake.

djeikyb 6y ago

Journalists got access to an early version of Gebru’s paper and reported on it: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-ai-ethics-research-paper-forced-out-timnit-gebru/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/04/1013294/google-a...

KittenInABox 6y ago
I'm aware of that and, to my bafflement, the paper isn't even that bad! It looks like fairly bog-standard "huh, ok" work. I have no idea why it would be requested to be retracted completely with no ability to simply revise/resubmit or to allow the academic peer review procedure, a move that from what I understand from other googlers is completely out of line with the norm there. This whole thing is a confusing mess.
barbacoa 6y ago
>>"the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, for example, have tried to establish a new anti-sexist and anti-racist vocabulary. An AI model trained on vast swaths of the internet won’t be attuned to the nuances of this vocabulary and won’t produce or interpret language in line with these new cultural norms." It's terrifying that these are the kind of views people in high places of major tech companies have. And that we are entrusting our tools of societal communication to those who see themselves as fighting in a culture war.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Yeah. That's the real story here and a very interesting one, but journalists would rather commit suicide than cover it.

lsiebert 6y ago

Basically google (edit: I should say executives at Google, 1500 other googlers have signed a petition supporting her) wanted her to retract her (and 7 co-authors) ethics paper, wouldn't give her clear reasons or work with her on it, and then fired her when she objected to that and other ways it wasn't living up to it's commitments.

j64mt41ebg 6y ago
She not only objected, but made it a deal breaker. She clearly said that she will resign on a later date if her demands are not meet. Google let her go immediately.

ffggvv 6y ago

google hired someone solely for their physical characteristics and then got shocked when they used their identity against google and bit the hand that feeds.