How did she not resign? She gave them an ultimatum demanding that the identities of peer reviewers be revealed to her and said that she would not work there if

How did she not resign? She gave them an ultimatum demanding that the identities of peer reviewers be revealed to her and said that she would not work there if her demands were not met. That is a resignation since those conditions cannot be met. Even leaving aside the threat of resignation, such a list of demands worded as they were, simply shows that this person is unprofessional, aggressive, and immature. And that's leaving aside the fact that the paper in question seems very scattered and unimpressive (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...). Frankly, reading the MIT Technology Review article makes me question the legitimacy of this entire field of AI Ethics and those who participate in it. As a reminder, this isn't the first problematic incident involving Timnit Gebru either. She previously went on an unhinged Twitter attack against Yann LeCunn, one of the pioneers of deep learning. He won a Turing award for his work on this topic and is one of the foremost experts on it, and understands its various nuances very well. When she was challenged, Timnit's line of attack was leveraging a word soup of progressive identity politics, demanding Yann LeCunn apologize to her, claiming harm was done to the community, etc. This highlighted her aggressive tactics (weaponization of her Twitter following and leveraging cancel culture) and it is clear she must be a very difficult employee to manage or work with. Coming back to the article linked here: whenever there is some incident (a firing, a walkout, a protest) at one of these big tech companies with a large activist employee population, articles get written that purport to present the opinion of the employee base at large. But usually, these articles only represent the loud minority that is willing to speak up and faces no repercussions. The employees that agree with Timnit Gebru leaving the company (supporting the company's stance) don't have psychological safety. Timnit wields the power of a big following of social justice activists on Twitter, and could shame/destroy people who speak up against her. The small number of employees voicing their support for her, even with total psychological safety, is a tiny percentage of Google's employee base. Those numbers paint a false picture that she has broad support when she doesn't. Perspectives from other Google employees are only available on anonymous forums like Blind (https://www.teamblind.com/post/We-stand-with-Jeff-Dean-and-Yann-LeCun-and-many-researchers-bsU03R70 https://www.teamblind.com/post/We-stand-with-Jeff-Dean-and-Y...) and Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_timnit_gebru_and_google_megathread/geqzqlq/?context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t...). Lastly, this has all been discussed in depth previously in a few different discussions on HN. The one with the most comments is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25292386.