4 ms·

Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly. If business concerns would override and silence the Ethical AI team, then you

Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly. If business concerns would override and silence the Ethical AI team, then you might as well not have one in the first place. It would be purely a PR thing, which it well might have been after all. Having someone that is known to speak their mind in such a team does lend it more credibility. But you also can't complain if they then speak their mind about things you would like them to shut up about.

free_rms 6y ago
The paper she was fired over was leaked, though, and it's.. not novel. It's the same things everyone else has been saying for years (global warming bad, also don't build a racist speech reproducer), and Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship and honestly would make the paper better to include analysis of mitigations.
- salawat 6y ago
  >Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship. You have a really funny world-view where compelled speech doesn't fall in the censorship bucket.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjcon 6y ago
    My employer asks me to change wording or add in bits of marketing fluff to my presentations all the time and I don’t go screaming to the hills for ‘compelled speech’. If you’re producing work on your companies dime it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they want you to represent the company well.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      For Google, a huge percentage of the value in having an ethical AI division comes from having a credible and independent collection of experts who oversee the company's efforts. The minute that team ceases to be viewed as independent and credible, their value to Google is vastly diminished. What Google wants to say to the world is "hey, you should totally trust us, we have the best ethical AI people in the field looking over our shoulder!" But now Google can't say that, because the world knows that their experts aren't completely free to exercise judgement or state their opinions. That may only be true to a limited extent, but the damage to Google is larger: mostly because we don't know how limited it is. Insofar as your employer feels free to add marketing fluff to your presentations, that's because your value to the company is not predicated on your being an independent voice who provides a check on management.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Is there any chance evidence to suggest that they hired Timnit merely as a PR show, rather than because they actually wanted a good product? Although it’s fun to assume bad faith when it comes to every action by every company, she was not supposed to be an independent critic to launder evil. She was supposed to work in cooperation with them to make a high quality product. They don’t want to create something that causes suffering. Even if you don’t buy that their motivation was pure, doing so would obviously be bad for business. What good is a product that only works for white people? Instead of adding perspective and cooperatively furthering a unified goal, she was divisive and created dysfunction. She was in an incredibly privileged position to do good and shape the future of some civilization-changing technologies. Instead of shaping a better future, she threw hand grenades and stuck wrenches in gears. Now not only does the future of their tech lack her perspective, but they are unlikely to engage with anyone who even smells like they could be a bad-faith activist.
        matthewdgreen 6y ago
        > Is there any chance evidence to suggest that they hired Timnit merely as a PR show, rather than because they actually wanted a good product? I didn't mean to imply that the ethical AI team is empty PR. What I'm saying is that the obvious corporate justification for an (expensive!) AI ethics team is to reassure regulators and customers that Google's AI techniques will follow best ethical practices. Obviously the best way for Google to achieve that goal is to hire a bunch of really strong researchers, and then incorporate their recommendations into Google's products. And of course, to have those researchers publish their findings so that the world can see that a standard is being followed. But the flipside can also be true, and damaging the credibility of your ethical AI team comes at a cost. It would not surprise me if some observers have come to negative conclusions about the independence of Google's researchers, which means those people are more likely to mistrust Google's products in the future. The irony is that even if Google has the very best intentions, they might now find it harder to convince people of this. This does meaningful harm to Google, and nothing Google's gotten out of this mess has been worth that cost.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Being told "you're multiple years behind the state of the art on this, please reference it" is a reasonable ask.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  But Google didn't ask her to add the references, they demanded she retract the paper. In the meeting when they demanded the retraction they refused to even explain why. If those references to recent developments were the real issue, it seems very odd that Google responded that way.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    Yeah, the way it was handled sounds like it came across someone's desk at the last second and I can understand frustration on her part.
  - bagacrap 6y ago
    retract paper, add references, resubmit
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  Was she fired over the paper? Or was she let go because she, with a position as a manager, told other people at Google not to participate in the DEI program because it was useless?
  - whoooooo123 6y ago
    I think a third explanation is more likely: management already had reasons to want to get rid of her and her 'do as I say or I quit!' email provided a convenient excuse to do so. From the type of things people are saying on r/machinelearning about what she was like to work with, it's not hard to imagine what those reasons might have been.
crusso 6y ago
Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly Does it also require a certain intellectual integrity to do properly? Because claiming that you were "immediately fired" online, then later having to "clarify" that you actually submitted your resignation because some demands weren't met sounds pretty dishonest to me.
- alilleybrinker 6y ago
  That is not an accurate description of events.
  - crusso 6y ago
    I'm just going by the CNN article and her tweets, which include the response from some manager, Megan: As a result, we are accepting your resignation immediately, effective today. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364732480958467 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364732480958467 Looks like Timnit Gebru made an ultimatum and offered her resignation if the terms of the ultimatum were not met. Google accepted her resignation and chose to have it effective immediately (as is often the case when you resign and a company feels like it would not be beneficial to have a longer departure period). It's not like I'm taking only the words of others. I'm reading what Gebru herself chose to put out there.
    - tolbish 6y ago
      Google let her go early claiming her actions were "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". That is the language used when firing someone for their behavior.
      - crusso 6y ago
        I agree that it could be viewed as firing language, but only if we had no context. However, we have context. We know that an ultimatum including a resignation threat was given. Accepting that resignation and making the termination of their employment relationship immediate with some extra "Yeah, this is for the best" language doesn't mean that she was fired. If you only want to consider the limited context of ignoring that she submitted a resignation ultimatum, aren't you just cherry picking?
visarga 6y ago
Even an ethics researcher at Google can't give ultimatums. Who elected her the supreme leader of AI ethics? For example I have read her papers and Twitter messages and never have I seen any shred of inclusiveness towards my race. If some people are passionate and strive to do something, work hard and advance in their career, then all their accomplishments can be explained away as race privilege. The irony is that she's being presented as a fighter for equality.

free_rms 6y ago

The paper she was fired over was leaked, though, and it's.. not novel. It's the same things everyone else has been saying for years (global warming bad, also don't build a racist speech reproducer), and Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship and honestly would make the paper better to include analysis of mitigations.

salawat 6y ago
>Google wanted her to reference their efforts to mitigate those things in addition to repeating yet again that they can happen. Self-serving? Sure, but not really censorship. You have a really funny world-view where compelled speech doesn't fall in the censorship bucket.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jjcon 6y ago
  My employer asks me to change wording or add in bits of marketing fluff to my presentations all the time and I don’t go screaming to the hills for ‘compelled speech’. If you’re producing work on your companies dime it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they want you to represent the company well.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    For Google, a huge percentage of the value in having an ethical AI division comes from having a credible and independent collection of experts who oversee the company's efforts. The minute that team ceases to be viewed as independent and credible, their value to Google is vastly diminished. What Google wants to say to the world is "hey, you should totally trust us, we have the best ethical AI people in the field looking over our shoulder!" But now Google can't say that, because the world knows that their experts aren't completely free to exercise judgement or state their opinions. That may only be true to a limited extent, but the damage to Google is larger: mostly because we don't know how limited it is. Insofar as your employer feels free to add marketing fluff to your presentations, that's because your value to the company is not predicated on your being an independent voice who provides a check on management.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Is there any chance evidence to suggest that they hired Timnit merely as a PR show, rather than because they actually wanted a good product? Although it’s fun to assume bad faith when it comes to every action by every company, she was not supposed to be an independent critic to launder evil. She was supposed to work in cooperation with them to make a high quality product. They don’t want to create something that causes suffering. Even if you don’t buy that their motivation was pure, doing so would obviously be bad for business. What good is a product that only works for white people? Instead of adding perspective and cooperatively furthering a unified goal, she was divisive and created dysfunction. She was in an incredibly privileged position to do good and shape the future of some civilization-changing technologies. Instead of shaping a better future, she threw hand grenades and stuck wrenches in gears. Now not only does the future of their tech lack her perspective, but they are unlikely to engage with anyone who even smells like they could be a bad-faith activist.
      - matthewdgreen 6y ago
        > Is there any chance evidence to suggest that they hired Timnit merely as a PR show, rather than because they actually wanted a good product? I didn't mean to imply that the ethical AI team is empty PR. What I'm saying is that the obvious corporate justification for an (expensive!) AI ethics team is to reassure regulators and customers that Google's AI techniques will follow best ethical practices. Obviously the best way for Google to achieve that goal is to hire a bunch of really strong researchers, and then incorporate their recommendations into Google's products. And of course, to have those researchers publish their findings so that the world can see that a standard is being followed. But the flipside can also be true, and damaging the credibility of your ethical AI team comes at a cost. It would not surprise me if some observers have come to negative conclusions about the independence of Google's researchers, which means those people are more likely to mistrust Google's products in the future. The irony is that even if Google has the very best intentions, they might now find it harder to convince people of this. This does meaningful harm to Google, and nothing Google's gotten out of this mess has been worth that cost.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Being told "you're multiple years behind the state of the art on this, please reference it" is a reasonable ask.
GVIrish 6y ago
But Google didn't ask her to add the references, they demanded she retract the paper. In the meeting when they demanded the retraction they refused to even explain why. If those references to recent developments were the real issue, it seems very odd that Google responded that way.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Yeah, the way it was handled sounds like it came across someone's desk at the last second and I can understand frustration on her part.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  retract paper, add references, resubmit
SyzygistSix 6y ago
Was she fired over the paper? Or was she let go because she, with a position as a manager, told other people at Google not to participate in the DEI program because it was useless?
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  I think a third explanation is more likely: management already had reasons to want to get rid of her and her 'do as I say or I quit!' email provided a convenient excuse to do so. From the type of things people are saying on r/machinelearning about what she was like to work with, it's not hard to imagine what those reasons might have been.

crusso 6y ago

Because this particular job does require a certain independence to do it properly Does it also require a certain intellectual integrity to do properly? Because claiming that you were "immediately fired" online, then later having to "clarify" that you actually submitted your resignation because some demands weren't met sounds pretty dishonest to me.

alilleybrinker 6y ago
That is not an accurate description of events.
- crusso 6y ago
  I'm just going by the CNN article and her tweets, which include the response from some manager, Megan: As a result, we are accepting your resignation immediately, effective today. https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364732480958467 https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1334364732480958467 Looks like Timnit Gebru made an ultimatum and offered her resignation if the terms of the ultimatum were not met. Google accepted her resignation and chose to have it effective immediately (as is often the case when you resign and a company feels like it would not be beneficial to have a longer departure period). It's not like I'm taking only the words of others. I'm reading what Gebru herself chose to put out there.
  - tolbish 6y ago
    Google let her go early claiming her actions were "inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager". That is the language used when firing someone for their behavior.
    - crusso 6y ago
      I agree that it could be viewed as firing language, but only if we had no context. However, we have context. We know that an ultimatum including a resignation threat was given. Accepting that resignation and making the termination of their employment relationship immediate with some extra "Yeah, this is for the best" language doesn't mean that she was fired. If you only want to consider the limited context of ignoring that she submitted a resignation ultimatum, aren't you just cherry picking?

visarga 6y ago

Even an ethics researcher at Google can't give ultimatums. Who elected her the supreme leader of AI ethics? For example I have read her papers and Twitter messages and never have I seen any shred of inclusiveness towards my race. If some people are passionate and strive to do something, work hard and advance in their career, then all their accomplishments can be explained away as race privilege. The irony is that she's being presented as a fighter for equality.