4 ms·

Even if you don't want to rehash it, I feel like making concrete statement of which of her actions you feel were toxic is more constructive than vilifying her p

Even if you don't want to rehash it, I feel like making concrete statement of which of her actions you feel were toxic is more constructive than vilifying her personally. Contrapoints made a good video on cancelling that highlights the difference between critique and cancelling, and there's a big difference between saying "she publicly accused Yann lecun of using his platform to direct his fanboys at her" and "after what she did to lecun, it's obvious she's a toxic person". In the latter you - leave open to the imagination of the reader what she did (which might be more negative to them than how they'd react to her actual auctions) - attack her person, not her actions, which is a big difference even pg wrote about iirc - make it impossible for the reader to rationally engage with your point, since all you share are emotions

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
In my post that was flagged, which was more directed to the demands from the ethical AI group mentioned in the article, I wrote: > In this case, the ethical AI group is doing the same thing: demanding a manager not have a role with them, demanding (again IMO) unwarranted apologies from other people, and worse, demanding the rehiring of someone has shown that she has no respect for others in her workplace. When it comes to Gebru, it was specifically these demands that Jeff Dean mentioned (and which appear to be uncontested) that I find toxic: > Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. And, to the contrary, I find it dishonest how much of the "accepted" media narrative I've read in this case is that Google is "trying to silence marginalized voices", which I think is not supported by any reasonable reading of the evidence.
- igorkraw 6y ago
  In timnits version of the events, as far is know, she asked to discuss the details of the internal review with the reviewers with the authors, as is apparently standard at Google. The leaving Google and working on an end date is unconstested. To me, unless we get the full email trail, these are he said-she said. But Timnit has less power (and can't even release the email thread because she's been locked out of her accounts as far as I know) and no-one I know who has worked with her seems to think of her as a vindictive person so until Google releases the email thread, I'm gonna slightly go with her version of the events.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

In my post that was flagged, which was more directed to the demands from the ethical AI group mentioned in the article, I wrote: > In this case, the ethical AI group is doing the same thing: demanding a manager not have a role with them, demanding (again IMO) unwarranted apologies from other people, and worse, demanding the rehiring of someone has shown that she has no respect for others in her workplace. When it comes to Gebru, it was specifically these demands that Jeff Dean mentioned (and which appear to be uncontested) that I find toxic: > Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. And, to the contrary, I find it dishonest how much of the "accepted" media narrative I've read in this case is that Google is "trying to silence marginalized voices", which I think is not supported by any reasonable reading of the evidence.

igorkraw 6y ago
In timnits version of the events, as far is know, she asked to discuss the details of the internal review with the reviewers with the authors, as is apparently standard at Google. The leaving Google and working on an end date is unconstested. To me, unless we get the full email trail, these are he said-she said. But Timnit has less power (and can't even release the email thread because she's been locked out of her accounts as far as I know) and no-one I know who has worked with her seems to think of her as a vindictive person so until Google releases the email thread, I'm gonna slightly go with her version of the events.