4 ms·

That's... not especially consistent with the facts that have come to light. * Timnit pointed out that language models have unavoidable flaws, including reflect

That's... not especially consistent with the facts that have come to light. * Timnit pointed out that language models have unavoidable flaws, including reflecting racial biases in their training data. This is sort of an obvious claim if you ask me but google stands to make a lot of money if it isn't true. * They demanded she take her name off the paper entirely. No changes requested. Research careers advance largely by publishing papers, and this is several months of her work they want disowned. * She agreed to take her name off provided she could have an explanation of what she was and was not permitted to say. IMO being a researcher and having publications yanked at the last moment based on unspecified criteria is not a tenable position. On one side, we have an unemployed researcher whose future credibility & employ-ability depend on not being caught lying (the easiest way to do this is not to lie, but who knows). On the other side, we have a billion-dollar company who have not been shy about spending significant sums of money to push their PR lines. Obviously either could be telling the truth but one seems markedly more likely than the other to me.

seg_lol 6y ago
Watch the whole thing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFq6Q_muwG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFq6Q_muwG0 it is just under an hour. Really watch it, shots, pauses, framing, color, vocal texture.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Perhaps I'm wrong about Google asking her to change it versus just telling her it's rejected. That's just how I read Jeff Dean's document posted here the other day. Assuming I am wrong about that, I'm not sure it changes much about my comment. Presumably Google has the authority to ask for a publication to be pulled, and responding with an unprofessional email to a wide list is not ideal. On the matter of not agreeing on an end date, Gebru raised resignation and Google picked the date. I just put it in context by thinking about myself. If I acted the way Gebru did when I was upset by a professional setback, would I expect to be fired? Yes, unequivocally. You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads, which is why Google wanted her paper pulled (I assume). If Gebru wants to be an academic she should work at a university. If she wants to work at Google she should realize her job is to sell ads. If her paper made Google look good (here's what Google is doing to combat the racism latent in our competitor's language models) then I have zero doubt Google would've been pleased by her work.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  I don't disagree with most of you say, except for this: > You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads, She was hired to do research, and her job was explicitly related to ethics, so this is very much in line with her work. My company has a research arm, and people who are hired into it are very much expected to publish papers and will be judged based on their ability to do so. Having disagreements about what the company does in public, and sending sensational emails to coworkers would not be tolerated here either, though.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published, especially not published with the name of the company or the company's researchers attached. I think that's basically Google's stand.
    - BeetleB 6y ago
      > I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them. I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them. I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.
worker767424 6y ago
She might have been getting managed out over her twitter spat with Yann LeCun, or maybe they just wanted her name off research or the research toned-down to not attract attention. What she definitely did wrong was misunderstand that a researcher on "Ethical AI" is a PR role, and job is to make Google look good. That doesn't mean she can't ask hard questions, she just has to do it the right way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

seg_lol 6y ago

Watch the whole thing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFq6Q_muwG0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFq6Q_muwG0 it is just under an hour. Really watch it, shots, pauses, framing, color, vocal texture.

ALittleLight 6y ago

Perhaps I'm wrong about Google asking her to change it versus just telling her it's rejected. That's just how I read Jeff Dean's document posted here the other day. Assuming I am wrong about that, I'm not sure it changes much about my comment. Presumably Google has the authority to ask for a publication to be pulled, and responding with an unprofessional email to a wide list is not ideal. On the matter of not agreeing on an end date, Gebru raised resignation and Google picked the date. I just put it in context by thinking about myself. If I acted the way Gebru did when I was upset by a professional setback, would I expect to be fired? Yes, unequivocally. You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads, which is why Google wanted her paper pulled (I assume). If Gebru wants to be an academic she should work at a university. If she wants to work at Google she should realize her job is to sell ads. If her paper made Google look good (here's what Google is doing to combat the racism latent in our competitor's language models) then I have zero doubt Google would've been pleased by her work.

BeetleB 6y ago
I don't disagree with most of you say, except for this: > You mention her having a research career - but she's not in research. She works at Google. Her job, however they try to fancy it up, is to sell ads. Explaining to people that language models are racist and energy inefficient is not a good way to sell more ads, She was hired to do research, and her job was explicitly related to ethics, so this is very much in line with her work. My company has a research arm, and people who are hired into it are very much expected to publish papers and will be judged based on their ability to do so. Having disagreements about what the company does in public, and sending sensational emails to coworkers would not be tolerated here either, though.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published, especially not published with the name of the company or the company's researchers attached. I think that's basically Google's stand.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    > I would expect that if a researcher at your company came up with a paper that concluded "Our work at this company is sexist, racist, and bad for the environment and we should abandon it" that your company would prefer it not be published I'm not really sure what your point is. At a very basic level: Of course they would not prefer it published. Just like they would prefer not to have transparency, pay competitive market salaries, give free lunches, have an HR department, etc. We all prefer things if we can get them. I would, however, expect that if a company hired a researcher to study whether their work is ethical, then it's silly to get in that researcher's way. If my company hired someone to ensure their supply chain for manufacturing does not involve sweatshops, then it certainly wouldn't look good if my company prevents him from saying so. If we aren't prepared for uncomfortable truths, we should not hire people to look into them. I honestly think there are other reasonable reasons to get rid of this researcher than what you are positing.

worker767424 6y ago

She might have been getting managed out over her twitter spat with Yann LeCun, or maybe they just wanted her name off research or the research toned-down to not attract attention. What she definitely did wrong was misunderstand that a researcher on "Ethical AI" is a PR role, and job is to make Google look good. That doesn't mean she can't ask hard questions, she just has to do it the right way.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]