6 ms·

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

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.

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.