4 ms·

Why does your last bullet point make me feel like we read two different articles?

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
fwiw I agree with the parent comment. This article, especially the ludicrous attempt to tie in the Gebru stuff, is super weak and absent of any details or anything substantial. I don’t see anything in the article that suggests Google suppresses unfavorable research or censors authors whatsoever. Instead it sounds like a lot of whining and complaining from exceedingly privileged researchers who want some version of tenure to apply within for-profit companies and seem too immature to accept that legal and compliance functions within a large corporation very differently than in academia.
- daniel957 6y ago
  Why did you find the mention of Timnit Gebru ludicrous? The issues are closely related. In fact, I was _expecting_ the article to mention it. Google tells Researcher 1 to re-word things in X way for Y reason. Google tells Timnit Gebru to re-word things in X way for Y reason. The X and Y are the same. Based on the rest of your response, I believe you are having trouble reading the article in an objective manner. You say that it sounds like whining to you. That’s because you already think it is. You came into the article with this viewpoint about academics in corporations already established. This is why I also found your comment hilarious. You already think Timnit is a whiny researcher. You say this article is about whiny researchers. Yet it’s _ludicrous_ to mention Timnit in this article? Also, Jeff Dean lied in his email. Maybe that’s why you’re confused about the Timnit situation. I’m assuming you don’t work at Google.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    You appear to be mistaken on nearly all the facts about the Gebru situation. Given this it seems clear we would draw very different conclusions. Anyone claiming Jeff Dean lied must be so disconnected from the actual facts and so prejudiced to blame Google and view Gebru’s actions as acceptable that their opinion amounts to nothing but partisan gainsaying. To be clear, it’s ok to disagree with Jeff Dean or to dispute his charitability in accepting Gebru’s ultimatum-based resignation, but to claim he publicly lied is beyond the pale.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie. I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.
      - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks. (I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts. That attempt to subvert reality was retrofitted onto the situation later, once the consequences of her inappropriate actions had set in for Gebru.
        joshuamorton 6y ago

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

fwiw I agree with the parent comment. This article, especially the ludicrous attempt to tie in the Gebru stuff, is super weak and absent of any details or anything substantial. I don’t see anything in the article that suggests Google suppresses unfavorable research or censors authors whatsoever. Instead it sounds like a lot of whining and complaining from exceedingly privileged researchers who want some version of tenure to apply within for-profit companies and seem too immature to accept that legal and compliance functions within a large corporation very differently than in academia.

daniel957 6y ago
Why did you find the mention of Timnit Gebru ludicrous? The issues are closely related. In fact, I was _expecting_ the article to mention it. Google tells Researcher 1 to re-word things in X way for Y reason. Google tells Timnit Gebru to re-word things in X way for Y reason. The X and Y are the same. Based on the rest of your response, I believe you are having trouble reading the article in an objective manner. You say that it sounds like whining to you. That’s because you already think it is. You came into the article with this viewpoint about academics in corporations already established. This is why I also found your comment hilarious. You already think Timnit is a whiny researcher. You say this article is about whiny researchers. Yet it’s _ludicrous_ to mention Timnit in this article? Also, Jeff Dean lied in his email. Maybe that’s why you’re confused about the Timnit situation. I’m assuming you don’t work at Google.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  You appear to be mistaken on nearly all the facts about the Gebru situation. Given this it seems clear we would draw very different conclusions. Anyone claiming Jeff Dean lied must be so disconnected from the actual facts and so prejudiced to blame Google and view Gebru’s actions as acceptable that their opinion amounts to nothing but partisan gainsaying. To be clear, it’s ok to disagree with Jeff Dean or to dispute his charitability in accepting Gebru’s ultimatum-based resignation, but to claim he publicly lied is beyond the pale.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie. I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.
    - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
      No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things. He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data. Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks. (I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)
        mlthoughts2018 6y ago
        I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts. That attempt to subvert reality was retrofitted onto the situation later, once the consequences of her inappropriate actions had set in for Gebru.
        joshuamorton 6y ago