10 ms·

Google CEO pledges to investigate exit of top AI ethicist

78 points by akashshah87 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bosswipe 6y ago
When Gebru presented her demand letter and resignation threat James Dean probably thought she had no leverage and moved quickly against her. That was an extremely poor calculation.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  It's doubtful that Google leadership thought Gebru had no leverage, or else they would've already removed her.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  Minor nitpick but I think he's called 'Jeff Dean', one of the co-author of the map-reduce paper. It will be interesting to see whether Google CEO is ready to sacrifice the 'nerd faction' in favor of the 'intersectional faction' of Google, or if he is ready to take the heat.
arendtio 6y ago
The moment when business beats ethics... The mentioned article has some more details: 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...
hpoe 6y ago
It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit. 2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee. I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless. Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this paper as what must have seemed like a clean reason when she made the threat to resign, but taking her up on that threat has blown up in their face because everyone can see their supposed rationale doesn't hold water. Taken as a whole, neither side looks particularly sympathetic, which makes it easy for partisans to latch onto the bad behavior of whomever they dislike.
adjkant 6y ago
It's really hard to think from reading that memo that they have any intention of making changes related to the core issue. It more or less read to me "look at all the things we're already doing" + "oops this really was a fuck up wasn't it, but too late I guess so we're going to try more things we were already doing to fix this". In context, it only makes sense. Google is not going to admit in a memo that they have a structural problem with either race or ethics, but it still is ever so slightly disappointing to see this treated more or less as an internal PR issue and not a moment to look in the mirror. The real mismatch here is what people think the core issue is vs what Google thinks the core issue is. From the memo, Google seems to think that some processes or policies would have prevented this. What it seems to me is that the general public sees a misalignment / direct conflict of values between Gebru's work and points and Google's profit / business. I think Google knows this internally but can't say the quiet part out loud.
convery 6y ago
Including this line from the previous NYT article as some seem to be confused about firings: "The company responded to her email, she said, by saying it could not meet her demands and that her resignation was accepted immediately" - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researcher-timnit-gebru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researc...
totorovirus 6y ago
Anyone getting tired of those toxic PC enthusiasts who stirs a fight in a team accusing its leadership for being incorrect on sensitive issues? I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some other topics. And Gebru is doing exactly that in Google.
- britch 6y ago
  I'm not seeing the connection between your comment and the Gerbu's firing. As I understand it Gerbu was hired as an academic to do research into AI ethics (her field of study). She was fired, in part, due to a disagreement around the contents of a paper she was publishing. Where is the sidewalking into engineering matters?
  - metabagel 6y ago
    I haven’t the foggiest idea what “sidewalking into engineering matters” (from the parent comment) means. Is that a British expression? I’ve only ever heard “sidewalk” used as a noun.
- anu7df 6y ago
  If you don't know her qualifications outside of ethical AI, you can't possibly know if "Gebru is doing exactly that in Google" People's motivations and ambitions vary. She may be very skilled in all things AI and yet choose the role she had and choose that hill to die on.
  - lmm 6y ago
    It's like when you see an official's nephew get a plum job at a large corp. Sure, it's possible that they legitimately got there on their merits, but if you give them the benefit of the doubt then you'll get taken for a ride by the bad actors, and you don't have the time or ability to check the details.
- 6y ago
almost_usual 6y ago
> Cynthia Yeung, an industry veteran who spent five years at Google, put it bluntly: "Maybe the trade-off should be more clearly spelled out so researchers can make informed decisions before they accept a job offer: You get paid academic salaries in exchange for intellectual freedom, and you get paid Silicon Valley salaries in exchange for allowing your name/likeness to be used for brand/PR purposes and your research to be censored arbitrarily." That seems like common sense.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.
  - waihtis 6y ago
    There is intellectual freedom if you have enough cash in the bank to last you a lifetime. Then, feel free to offend anyone with your opinions as you cannot die from starvation.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      ah, the "gentleman scientists" of whom we hear so much when learning scientific history.
      - waihtis 6y ago
        No room for gentlemen scientists when there are plethoras of people out there who will happily crucify you and negate everything you've achieved if you happen to have the slightest social dent in your image. To be untouchable be openly degenerate & filthy rich.
  - Ansil849 6y ago
    > doxed by New York Times. Are you thinking of any specific case where the Times doxed someone for practicing intellectual freedom?
pseingatl 6y ago
Three times he uses the word "departure" as if this were her decision. The last reference uses the word "left," reinforcing the position that Google didn't fire her. Have no doubt: this CYA text was massaged and went through several HR and in-house GC revisions, and maybe even a few round-trips to outside labor litigation counsel. In other words, this statement is pure CYA and litigation-defensive. They're terrified of a racial discrimination lawsuit. I hope that Timnit can find her way to the courthouse. I'd love to cross-examine Pichai with this statement in hand. He would deny that these were his words. He would say that he would have expressed it differently. He would say that he wasn't involved with the firing decision: every time the question is asked, the noun used is "termination" and not departure. The only question remaining, assuming Timnit does file, is quanta of damages.
- bartvk 6y ago
  It looks to be partly her decision, if I'm reading The Verge correctly: "After the email went out, Gebru told managers that certain conditions had to be met in order for her to stay at the company. Otherwise, she would have to work on a transition plan." https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/3/22150355/google-fires-timnit-gebru-facial-recognition-ai-ethicist https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/3/22150355/google-fires-tim...
- thu2111 6y ago
  In what legal universe could she claim any damages at all, after making it clear that she was quite happy to resign if her ultimatum wasn't met? And with no evidence anywhere that her 'departure' was racially motivated? Are Californian courts really so biased that they'd see racism in a situation where the employee had been planning to sue her own employer, in an at will state?
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    Google incurs legal fees regardless of the merits of the case. They are already losing in the court of public opinion. IMO they should have given her $3-5 million dollars and an NDA when accepting her resignation.
babesh 6y ago
This is a power conflict between the capitalists and the social justice warriors. The last several years, the SJWs have progressively increased their power. The capitalists have adopted the clothing so that their power isn’t undermined. The SJWs are seeing how much further they can push. The capitalists are deciding what trinkets they can give away without relinquishing real power. Eventually, the SJWs will be paid off, destroyed, win completely, or gain seats on the table and then it will be in their interests to preserve the power structure and oppress another group of people. Look at the Biden cabinet as seats on the table for groups that play nice with the Democratic Party or those that they want to court.
kjgkjhfkjf 6y ago
It's very strange that Sundar refers to "Dr. Gebru" throughout his email. Google is generally a first-name company.
- germanjoey 6y ago
  He likely wants to decrease the letter's contents' relevancy ranking in a Google search for "Timnit Gebru".
Traster 6y ago
I think a lot of the commentary is incredibly naive about the chain of events. It may be that this researcher was a complete arsehole, who despite this had managed to climb to a well respected position in Google and within the community in her area of expertise. However, I think it's much more likely her toxic behaviour is a direct result of her being put into an extremely difficult position by her employer. Her job is to publish research on the ethics of the AI work that Google is doing. But by the sounds of it, Google want to block her from actually publishing anything critical. It would be one thing to say that her work was unsound, but that doesn't really seem to have happened. Instead there seems to be the classic corporate pocket veto. They don't want her publishing something critical, but they also want the PR of having respected AI ethics researchers. So they don't say she can't publish critical work, they just won't let her publish critical work. And when she asks why she can't publish critical work... well she can publish critical work Google has always been very clear that she's free to publish critical work. So she can publish the work? No. No you can't publish the work. That would make me pretty crazy too. I don't she's handled it well, but at the end of the day she's a person and she's facing her job basically being taken from her (and arguably finding out she's been a useful idiot for quite a while). It's pretty clear here that Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to tell the world that it's got respected scientists doing research into the ethics of their AI work, but they don't actually want researcher to do research about the ethics of their AI work because a lot of what they're doing is unethical.
egberts1 6y ago
Tad bit late Mr. CEO of Google; it would makes most sense to fire HR and restore that position back to her.
- dekhn 6y ago
  I think the outcome of the investigation will be that Megan jumped the gun when she prematurely terminated Timnit, and Google will pay Timnit a bunch of money in a private settlement. It's unlikely Megan will see any real punishment for it, though- she's a favorite of Jeff's and is well-protected by HR.
SMAAART 6y ago
File under: it's better to apologize than to do the right things the first time.
jp0d 6y ago
My initial reaction to this was to support the underdog and vilify the big corporation. But then I read her responses online and found it to be extremely unprofessional. And also read her interactions with "Yann Lecun", someone who I respect a lot. The way she attacked Yann, even after his apologies is unacceptable. It's fine to be an SJW but it's not okay to bully others for your beliefs.

78 points by akashshah87 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bosswipe 6y ago

When Gebru presented her demand letter and resignation threat James Dean probably thought she had no leverage and moved quickly against her. That was an extremely poor calculation.

threatofrain 6y ago
It's doubtful that Google leadership thought Gebru had no leverage, or else they would've already removed her.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throw_m239339 6y ago
Minor nitpick but I think he's called 'Jeff Dean', one of the co-author of the map-reduce paper. It will be interesting to see whether Google CEO is ready to sacrifice the 'nerd faction' in favor of the 'intersectional faction' of Google, or if he is ready to take the heat.

arendtio 6y ago

The moment when business beats ethics... The mentioned article has some more details: 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...

hpoe 6y ago

It seems to me like we have two different people arguing about 2 (maybe 3) completely different things when it comes to this Gebru situation. 1 - Google fired Gebru for trying to push a paper that presented google in a negative light. Doing so by creating special magic policies for her and then telling her she was fired. The concern in this case appears to be the fact that Google is suppressing criticism and ignoring it's own Ethics department and this is an example of morality being destroyed for profit. 2.- Gebru acted in an incredibly unprofessional manner following instruction to retract a paper, including posting charged complaints and accusations on an internal company mailing list as well as demanding to have revealed to her the identities of people that reviewed her paper and found it wanting. Those in this camp seem to generally accept that her firing was a result of unprofessional behavior from an employee that was disruptive to the organization. They then see that Google accepted her offer of having her demands met or working on an exit date as a reasonable business decision [See note], and see the subsequent drama as an attempt to draw attention to herself. Ultimately they see it as removing a toxic employee. I don't really know what my point is but it seems in these comments we generally have 2 totally different discussions going on with one side lambasting the other for being ignorant, naive, or clueless. Note: Also point of clarification that I don't see often asserted, it is SOP to remove a disgruntled employee's access to everything as quickly as possible after (or often before) termination in order to prevent them from using their access in a manner detrimental to the company.

Analemma_ 6y ago
I think the synthesis of both of these narratives goes like this: Google had been wanting to get rid of Gebru for a while, for both good reasons (based on her emails and tweets she does indeed seem like an incredibly toxic personality and I sure wouldn't want to work anywhere near her) and bad (retaliation against the lawsuit she filed last year, which is both unlawful and incredibly unethical). They picked this paper as what must have seemed like a clean reason when she made the threat to resign, but taking her up on that threat has blown up in their face because everyone can see their supposed rationale doesn't hold water. Taken as a whole, neither side looks particularly sympathetic, which makes it easy for partisans to latch onto the bad behavior of whomever they dislike.

adjkant 6y ago

It's really hard to think from reading that memo that they have any intention of making changes related to the core issue. It more or less read to me "look at all the things we're already doing" + "oops this really was a fuck up wasn't it, but too late I guess so we're going to try more things we were already doing to fix this". In context, it only makes sense. Google is not going to admit in a memo that they have a structural problem with either race or ethics, but it still is ever so slightly disappointing to see this treated more or less as an internal PR issue and not a moment to look in the mirror. The real mismatch here is what people think the core issue is vs what Google thinks the core issue is. From the memo, Google seems to think that some processes or policies would have prevented this. What it seems to me is that the general public sees a misalignment / direct conflict of values between Gebru's work and points and Google's profit / business. I think Google knows this internally but can't say the quiet part out loud.

convery 6y ago

Including this line from the previous NYT article as some seem to be confused about firings: "The company responded to her email, she said, by saying it could not meet her demands and that her resignation was accepted immediately" - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researcher-timnit-gebru.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/technology/google-researc...

totorovirus 6y ago

Anyone getting tired of those toxic PC enthusiasts who stirs a fight in a team accusing its leadership for being incorrect on sensitive issues? I don't know if Gebru actually qualifies aside the matters of ethical AI. In my experience those people who work in engineering who sidewalks into some non-engineering matters often lack skills to compete where most do, and decided to leverage their incompetency with some other topics. And Gebru is doing exactly that in Google.

britch 6y ago
I'm not seeing the connection between your comment and the Gerbu's firing. As I understand it Gerbu was hired as an academic to do research into AI ethics (her field of study). She was fired, in part, due to a disagreement around the contents of a paper she was publishing. Where is the sidewalking into engineering matters?
- metabagel 6y ago
  I haven’t the foggiest idea what “sidewalking into engineering matters” (from the parent comment) means. Is that a British expression? I’ve only ever heard “sidewalk” used as a noun.
anu7df 6y ago
If you don't know her qualifications outside of ethical AI, you can't possibly know if "Gebru is doing exactly that in Google" People's motivations and ambitions vary. She may be very skilled in all things AI and yet choose the role she had and choose that hill to die on.
- lmm 6y ago
  It's like when you see an official's nephew get a plum job at a large corp. Sure, it's possible that they legitimately got there on their merits, but if you give them the benefit of the doubt then you'll get taken for a ride by the bad actors, and you don't have the time or ability to check the details.
6y ago

almost_usual 6y ago

> Cynthia Yeung, an industry veteran who spent five years at Google, put it bluntly: "Maybe the trade-off should be more clearly spelled out so researchers can make informed decisions before they accept a job offer: You get paid academic salaries in exchange for intellectual freedom, and you get paid Silicon Valley salaries in exchange for allowing your name/likeness to be used for brand/PR purposes and your research to be censored arbitrarily." That seems like common sense.

xyzzyz 6y ago
Sadly, there is no intellectual freedom in academic world either. These days, the only way to intellectual freedom left is anonymity, and even then you have to be careful to not be doxed by New York Times.
- waihtis 6y ago
  There is intellectual freedom if you have enough cash in the bank to last you a lifetime. Then, feel free to offend anyone with your opinions as you cannot die from starvation.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    ah, the "gentleman scientists" of whom we hear so much when learning scientific history.
    - waihtis 6y ago
      No room for gentlemen scientists when there are plethoras of people out there who will happily crucify you and negate everything you've achieved if you happen to have the slightest social dent in your image. To be untouchable be openly degenerate & filthy rich.
- Ansil849 6y ago
  > doxed by New York Times. Are you thinking of any specific case where the Times doxed someone for practicing intellectual freedom?

pseingatl 6y ago

Three times he uses the word "departure" as if this were her decision. The last reference uses the word "left," reinforcing the position that Google didn't fire her. Have no doubt: this CYA text was massaged and went through several HR and in-house GC revisions, and maybe even a few round-trips to outside labor litigation counsel. In other words, this statement is pure CYA and litigation-defensive. They're terrified of a racial discrimination lawsuit. I hope that Timnit can find her way to the courthouse. I'd love to cross-examine Pichai with this statement in hand. He would deny that these were his words. He would say that he would have expressed it differently. He would say that he wasn't involved with the firing decision: every time the question is asked, the noun used is "termination" and not departure. The only question remaining, assuming Timnit does file, is quanta of damages.

bartvk 6y ago
It looks to be partly her decision, if I'm reading The Verge correctly: "After the email went out, Gebru told managers that certain conditions had to be met in order for her to stay at the company. Otherwise, she would have to work on a transition plan." https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/3/22150355/google-fires-timnit-gebru-facial-recognition-ai-ethicist https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/3/22150355/google-fires-tim...
thu2111 6y ago
In what legal universe could she claim any damages at all, after making it clear that she was quite happy to resign if her ultimatum wasn't met? And with no evidence anywhere that her 'departure' was racially motivated? Are Californian courts really so biased that they'd see racism in a situation where the employee had been planning to sue her own employer, in an at will state?
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  Google incurs legal fees regardless of the merits of the case. They are already losing in the court of public opinion. IMO they should have given her $3-5 million dollars and an NDA when accepting her resignation.

babesh 6y ago

This is a power conflict between the capitalists and the social justice warriors. The last several years, the SJWs have progressively increased their power. The capitalists have adopted the clothing so that their power isn’t undermined. The SJWs are seeing how much further they can push. The capitalists are deciding what trinkets they can give away without relinquishing real power. Eventually, the SJWs will be paid off, destroyed, win completely, or gain seats on the table and then it will be in their interests to preserve the power structure and oppress another group of people. Look at the Biden cabinet as seats on the table for groups that play nice with the Democratic Party or those that they want to court.

kjgkjhfkjf 6y ago

It's very strange that Sundar refers to "Dr. Gebru" throughout his email. Google is generally a first-name company.

germanjoey 6y ago
He likely wants to decrease the letter's contents' relevancy ranking in a Google search for "Timnit Gebru".

Traster 6y ago

I think a lot of the commentary is incredibly naive about the chain of events. It may be that this researcher was a complete arsehole, who despite this had managed to climb to a well respected position in Google and within the community in her area of expertise. However, I think it's much more likely her toxic behaviour is a direct result of her being put into an extremely difficult position by her employer. Her job is to publish research on the ethics of the AI work that Google is doing. But by the sounds of it, Google want to block her from actually publishing anything critical. It would be one thing to say that her work was unsound, but that doesn't really seem to have happened. Instead there seems to be the classic corporate pocket veto. They don't want her publishing something critical, but they also want the PR of having respected AI ethics researchers. So they don't say she can't publish critical work, they just won't let her publish critical work. And when she asks why she can't publish critical work... well she can publish critical work Google has always been very clear that she's free to publish critical work. So she can publish the work? No. No you can't publish the work. That would make me pretty crazy too. I don't she's handled it well, but at the end of the day she's a person and she's facing her job basically being taken from her (and arguably finding out she's been a useful idiot for quite a while). It's pretty clear here that Google wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to tell the world that it's got respected scientists doing research into the ethics of their AI work, but they don't actually want researcher to do research about the ethics of their AI work because a lot of what they're doing is unethical.

egberts1 6y ago

Tad bit late Mr. CEO of Google; it would makes most sense to fire HR and restore that position back to her.

dekhn 6y ago
I think the outcome of the investigation will be that Megan jumped the gun when she prematurely terminated Timnit, and Google will pay Timnit a bunch of money in a private settlement. It's unlikely Megan will see any real punishment for it, though- she's a favorite of Jeff's and is well-protected by HR.

SMAAART 6y ago

File under: it's better to apologize than to do the right things the first time.

jp0d 6y ago

My initial reaction to this was to support the underdog and vilify the big corporation. But then I read her responses online and found it to be extremely unprofessional. And also read her interactions with "Yann Lecun", someone who I respect a lot. The way she attacked Yann, even after his apologies is unacceptable. It's fine to be an SJW but it's not okay to bully others for your beliefs.