8 ms·

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true,

by esja 6y ago

“In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts.” If true, that is damning, and would demonstrate once again that being an “ethics researcher” does not mean that you are are any more ethical than the average person. It just means you are more interested in the subject. As a side note, I wish this field was more interested in meta-ethics than it is in forcing machines to abide by the personal ethics of the humans involved.

nostromo 6y ago
Many of the people in this field aren’t ethicists, they’re activists.
- markdown 6y ago
  In a highly unethical environment, all ethicists are activists by necessity.
  - throwawaygulf 6y ago
    In reality, all activist ethicists are unethical by nature.
- NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
  A large part of them believe that a researcher has to be an activist, i.e. research=activism. Many recent textbooks on social science see the following as credible resarch: "Emancipatory research: Research that exposes underlying ideologies in order to liberate those oppressed by them." (Zina O'Leary textbook, used by many schools, over 2K citations for multiple editions) So if a corporate behemoth such as Google wants to ethicswash itself by hiring individuals with the above approach, what outcome did it expect?
  - visarga 6y ago
    It was clearly a mistake. They don't act in a constructive way. Let's take Timnit's paper for example. She found out that Google had been using a biased language model in search. The bias was like - 'male' association with 'doctor' as opposed to 'woman' association to 'nurse'. But she didn't show how this is harming anyone in a concrete way. Just theoretical. And then she offered no solution, just blaming the work of others, using her paper as a soap box to raise scandal and make herself holier than thou.
    - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
      With the hard realism approach, a corporate entity would fund an independent body of research, and then re-use publications that match their agenda. Hiring someone (perhaps with aspirations to buy their loyalty?) entails risks. Instead of pulling funding from the "independent think-tank", google now finds itself in the midst of a potential discrimination/political scandal involving an employee.
    - thishit 6y ago
      Just shows that you didn't understand their paper then, if that's your disingenuous take on it.
      - visarga 6y ago
        Can you please enlighten me about her best constructive idea from this paper? No critique, just one original idea.
    - gillesjacobs 6y ago
      While I am not a fan of Gebru's handling of her own firing, this is a mischaracterization of her work. She routinely offered suggested methods, experiments, and even new datasets [1] that fixed what she saw as wrong. She does have a fair bit of practical ML experience as shown in the computer vision papers in her publication list. 1. Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. "Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification." Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. 2018.
  - n4r9 6y ago
    I feel like your first two sentences are conflating the belief that research has to involve activism, and the belief that activist pursuits are worthy research. Why is the aim of exposing ideology not worthy of being researched in your opinion?
    - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
      Some concerns for social science involve the lack of replicability, publications thus becoming literature, with "credibility" often established by in-clique circular citations. Emotional and political coloring also come to mind. There is a position in social science that all research is political (Frankfurt school and those that oppose it, among others). The belief that research has to involve activism has been demonstrated by the individuals under discussion. I cite that this is taught as a valid position in the field. Political motivation of scientific activity is worthy of research. Both sides involved in the conflict at google may be described as demonstrating political, and apparently opposing, viewpoints.
  - throwawaygulf 6y ago
    >A large part of them believe that a researcher has to be an activist, i.e. research=activism. A large part of them believe in other delusions such as "silence is violence", coming to work on time is "Whiteness", and "objective, rational" thinking is normalized racism. In their deranged minds, the ends justify their means, so they can be the antithesis of their being because their crusade is holy, and just. That's the complete opposite of being a researcher.
- visarga 6y ago
  True, they only support their own political faction under the guise of "identity politics", not all people. For example Andrew Ng is considered "white adjacent" because he's the only non-white in an article about the history of AI. Asians are not favored with this group of activists.
  - gillesjacobs 6y ago
    Racialists on either side of the aisle really enjoy their mental gymnastics.
  - visarga 6y ago
    Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1252752743942328321 https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1252752743942328321
- hikingsimulator 6y ago
  I hope they are. You would not want a fire brigade that's only theoretical about putting fires out. It seems that the occurrence of people who bemoan that social scientists are activists, that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study, has increased in recent years. It's bad logic. A sociologist studying the effects of poverty shouldn't be interested in solving poverty is a mind-boggling idea. There's something more pressing, now. People can concur here. I've found that this line of thought, that social scientists shouldn't be activists, is an idea that's been drummed about by the so-called 'intellectual dark web'. This rag-time team of pundits propagated a lot of conspiracy theories about the 'cultural marxism', the 'Frankfurt school', etc. It feels like an attempt at policing the content of social research under the cover of conservative/christian propriety.
  - belorn 6y ago
    If you hired a researcher to find out the most effective strategies to putting out fires you might actually want a purely theoretical researcher. Advocates for air drops might be blind to firewalls and vise verse. There is also a reason to be cautious if a sociologist studying the effects of poverty were basing their suggestions on what would fix their own poverty.
    - hikingsimulator 6y ago
      Except social sciences aren't 'purely' theoretical. It's why it's sometimes called human science. There is a prominent human, and humane, part to it. It's a study of the human condition to some extent and it can't be separated from it. As for your second point, that's true, but it's also why research is always open to criticism. Casting social scientists and ethicists in this case as activists feels like a political swipe.
  - visarga 6y ago
    > people who bemoan that social scientists are activists I'd prefer they label themselves as partizan ethicists or activists. > , that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study On the contrary, they should develop solutions, not just scandals. The problem is with activists who just want to criticize without contributing a solution. I suspect they are more interested in making a name for themselves and using ethics as a club.
- pr_nik2 6y ago
  I really have no problem with people being both subject-matter experts and activists. Chomsky is the prime example: world-class linguist and outspoken leftist intellectual. But the one mistake he never made was to try to established 'leftist linguistics'. Contemporary 'AI ethics' feels like leftist activism with a very superficial understanding of machine learning technologies. Versions of "ML researchers are white males, so their creations inherit their biases"[1] are objectively wrong. Biases exists, but they come from the human-annotated training data fed into ML systems and not the gender of the programmer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial...
- avereveard 6y ago
  There's plenty of both, but Google specifically hired a majority of activist for this panel
meheleventyone 6y ago
It’s not necessarily unethical to do that if you believe you are uncovering or preventing the cover up of unethical behaviour. Ethics is more than following the rules. See whistleblower protections for where that sort of thing intersects with the law.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  I just don’t see much reason to believe that she has the kind of evidence that would justify calling her a whistleblower. I could be wrong, and if she releases emails of Sundar being racist or something I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, but it seems a lot more like she was just angry over the Gebru firing.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Well yeah, but at the same time, exfiltrating internal company data is still grounds for dismissal. It could be ethical and the Right Thing to Do, but you still crossed a boundary. She's lost her job; if she's lucky that's the end of it. She can probably sue to get her job back or a compensation depending on whether a judge or jury rules that leaking the data served a higher purpose, but it's debatable.
Zarath 6y ago
What if Google is doing something unethical?
- izacus 6y ago
  Well, it'd be great to hear this from a respectable and ethical person and not someone who'll lie for their own gain, right?
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    Because Google has a stellar ethical track record and would never lie for their own gain, right? I think they’ve exhausted the benefit of the doubt.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      The benefit of what doubt? No matter how much you distrust Google, we can’t really presume they’re guilty of hypothetical accusations that haven’t actually been made.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        I’m just saying that we should take their version of the story with a massive grain of salt.
        izacus 6y ago
        Then again the activists have proven to be pretty dishonest themselves. Timnit lied about who fired her, hid the fact that she gave an ultimatum and has now dedicated time to publicly smear and attack everyone at Google, including listing people who should be fired (by name!) on Twitter. Not to mention the abusive behaviour she showed towards the FB head of AI on Twitter who stopped posting as a result. She never apologised, although she demands apology from Google coworkers. The other activist was fired when she deployed political messaging code in production while hiding the whole process from her team and manager. Do those strike as a people that will honestly present their story and would be good to work with? Ones that happily lie and fudge the truth to drive their agendas? Because in my experience people who act like this, no matter what skin color they have, are corrosive and abusive to work with.
yholio 6y ago
Leaking sensitive material is not unethical by definition, some situations might impose a moral imperative to act in this manner. In the narrow ethical world of top down organizations, be they for profit corporations or the Army, it's of course a mortal sin, as is every other attempt to bring accountability to upper levels and redirect the flow of bullshit from top-down to bottom-up. I'll let you guess who decides what "ethics" stands for in this situation.
- ranjitcool1 6y ago
  That is such a subjective statement. One persons morals differ from another’s - a leak is a leak doesn’t matter what excuses one makes to justify it
- slut 6y ago
  Had it been an independent or much less related third party I'd tend to agree. However, with Mitchell's relation to and defense of Gebru, I'm not terribly sure I'd call this ethical, unless one is completely able to suspend their own biases. Getting caught doing this is bad judgement either way.
- visarga 6y ago
  > Leaking sensitive material is not unethical by definition, some situations might impose a moral imperative to act in this manner. Doesn't apply in this case. Snowden acted for the country, not for his dear friend who was fired in a scandal. Their supporters on Twitter raised hell and even made a cancel list of twitter users (AI researchers) who dared oppose their comments (Anima A.).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 6y ago
>If true, that is damning it's not damning and not unethical, it's the definition of whistle-blowing.
- babesh 6y ago
  There isn’t enough to tell based on the information provided. You are just viewing partial data with your biases. Haven’t we had enough of snap decisions based on personal biases?
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    okay granted. I think it's likely whistleblowing given what we have heard about the treatment of Gebru so far. However what it is definitely not is 'damning', and at this point I'm out of goodwill for Google to be honest. Less of a bias and more a healthier attitude towards big business.
  - Xelbair 6y ago
    so are people claiming that it is unethical. we just need to wait for more information.
    - babesh 6y ago
      Yes. That is the point. It could even be more nuanced.
- mikejb 6y ago
  Not every leak is a whistleblow. It depends on the content of the files. That verdict still needs to be made (depending on the content of the leaked files).
cm2187 6y ago
In banks, I'd say half of the cases of insider dealing I have seen in the news the past 5 years came from the compliance department.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> If true, that is damning Sure, and, if false, its also damning — in both cases, of Google management. Either: (1) They have received an early indication which may indicate either unauthorized or legally protected activity, and are publicly naming and blaming and specific employee before completing an investigation, which is merely grossly unprofessional and unethical though probably not actually illegal, or (2) They are lying and libeling a current employee.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Why do you think Google reached out to the press? I’d bet the employee leaking documents did, and Google just responded to a request for comment. It’s more the style of those players.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Why do you think Google reached out to the press? Why do you think I think that? I never said anything about who reached out to the press. > I’d bet the employee leaking documents did I bet they didn’t, because none of the articles include anything that the employee would have given them, only that they could not immediately be reached for comment. If that employee was the first source of information, then there would actually be some information from their perspective. > and Google just responded to a request for comment. The normal response (for a variety of good reasons, including legal and ethical ones) from a company on a matter like this when asked by the press when they haven’t completed an internal investigation would be to decline comment on personnel matters. Google’s behavior is grossly unethical here irrespective of who reached out to the media first.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      > "publicly naming and blaming and specific employee" They're not doing this if the press reaches out to them for comment with the specific details first. Given the bad faith actions of Gebru already (and apparently she's at least partially the source here from the other reply to your comment) it makes sense for Google to clarify with the response they gave (and in that response Google also did not mention the name of the employee). This issue is way too heated for real productive discussion on internet forums. It's obviously tribal, flamewar bait, with a massive undercurrent of partisan politics (and perceived partisan politics on the side of the person you're disagreeing with). I found what Gebru did earlier to be wrong, my prior is that the behavior here by the employee is also likely to be wrong. I've been generally disappointed in the level of discussion from the political fringes (both 'woke' and pretty much the entire GOP at this point). I find a lot of overlap between this Google AI ethicist community and critical race theory woke politics. I suspect in the end when all the details are out Google will be in the right. Without waiting there's no point for all the arguing that's going to go back and forth in these comments.

by esja 6y ago

nostromo 6y ago

Many of the people in this field aren’t ethicists, they’re activists.

markdown 6y ago
In a highly unethical environment, all ethicists are activists by necessity.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago
  In reality, all activist ethicists are unethical by nature.
NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
A large part of them believe that a researcher has to be an activist, i.e. research=activism. Many recent textbooks on social science see the following as credible resarch: "Emancipatory research: Research that exposes underlying ideologies in order to liberate those oppressed by them." (Zina O'Leary textbook, used by many schools, over 2K citations for multiple editions) So if a corporate behemoth such as Google wants to ethicswash itself by hiring individuals with the above approach, what outcome did it expect?
- visarga 6y ago
  It was clearly a mistake. They don't act in a constructive way. Let's take Timnit's paper for example. She found out that Google had been using a biased language model in search. The bias was like - 'male' association with 'doctor' as opposed to 'woman' association to 'nurse'. But she didn't show how this is harming anyone in a concrete way. Just theoretical. And then she offered no solution, just blaming the work of others, using her paper as a soap box to raise scandal and make herself holier than thou.
  - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
    With the hard realism approach, a corporate entity would fund an independent body of research, and then re-use publications that match their agenda. Hiring someone (perhaps with aspirations to buy their loyalty?) entails risks. Instead of pulling funding from the "independent think-tank", google now finds itself in the midst of a potential discrimination/political scandal involving an employee.
  - thishit 6y ago
    Just shows that you didn't understand their paper then, if that's your disingenuous take on it.
    - visarga 6y ago
      Can you please enlighten me about her best constructive idea from this paper? No critique, just one original idea.
  - gillesjacobs 6y ago
    While I am not a fan of Gebru's handling of her own firing, this is a mischaracterization of her work. She routinely offered suggested methods, experiments, and even new datasets [1] that fixed what she saw as wrong. She does have a fair bit of practical ML experience as shown in the computer vision papers in her publication list. 1. Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. "Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification." Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. 2018.
- n4r9 6y ago
  I feel like your first two sentences are conflating the belief that research has to involve activism, and the belief that activist pursuits are worthy research. Why is the aim of exposing ideology not worthy of being researched in your opinion?
  - NotPavlovsDog 6y ago
    Some concerns for social science involve the lack of replicability, publications thus becoming literature, with "credibility" often established by in-clique circular citations. Emotional and political coloring also come to mind. There is a position in social science that all research is political (Frankfurt school and those that oppose it, among others). The belief that research has to involve activism has been demonstrated by the individuals under discussion. I cite that this is taught as a valid position in the field. Political motivation of scientific activity is worthy of research. Both sides involved in the conflict at google may be described as demonstrating political, and apparently opposing, viewpoints.
- throwawaygulf 6y ago
  >A large part of them believe that a researcher has to be an activist, i.e. research=activism. A large part of them believe in other delusions such as "silence is violence", coming to work on time is "Whiteness", and "objective, rational" thinking is normalized racism. In their deranged minds, the ends justify their means, so they can be the antithesis of their being because their crusade is holy, and just. That's the complete opposite of being a researcher.
visarga 6y ago
True, they only support their own political faction under the guise of "identity politics", not all people. For example Andrew Ng is considered "white adjacent" because he's the only non-white in an article about the history of AI. Asians are not favored with this group of activists.
- gillesjacobs 6y ago
  Racialists on either side of the aisle really enjoy their mental gymnastics.
- visarga 6y ago
  Here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1252752743942328321 https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1252752743942328321
hikingsimulator 6y ago
I hope they are. You would not want a fire brigade that's only theoretical about putting fires out. It seems that the occurrence of people who bemoan that social scientists are activists, that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study, has increased in recent years. It's bad logic. A sociologist studying the effects of poverty shouldn't be interested in solving poverty is a mind-boggling idea. There's something more pressing, now. People can concur here. I've found that this line of thought, that social scientists shouldn't be activists, is an idea that's been drummed about by the so-called 'intellectual dark web'. This rag-time team of pundits propagated a lot of conspiracy theories about the 'cultural marxism', the 'Frankfurt school', etc. It feels like an attempt at policing the content of social research under the cover of conservative/christian propriety.
- belorn 6y ago
  If you hired a researcher to find out the most effective strategies to putting out fires you might actually want a purely theoretical researcher. Advocates for air drops might be blind to firewalls and vise verse. There is also a reason to be cautious if a sociologist studying the effects of poverty were basing their suggestions on what would fix their own poverty.
  - hikingsimulator 6y ago
    Except social sciences aren't 'purely' theoretical. It's why it's sometimes called human science. There is a prominent human, and humane, part to it. It's a study of the human condition to some extent and it can't be separated from it. As for your second point, that's true, but it's also why research is always open to criticism. Casting social scientists and ethicists in this case as activists feels like a political swipe.
- visarga 6y ago
  > people who bemoan that social scientists are activists I'd prefer they label themselves as partizan ethicists or activists. > , that they are not supposed to actually develop solutions to what they study On the contrary, they should develop solutions, not just scandals. The problem is with activists who just want to criticize without contributing a solution. I suspect they are more interested in making a name for themselves and using ethics as a club.
pr_nik2 6y ago
I really have no problem with people being both subject-matter experts and activists. Chomsky is the prime example: world-class linguist and outspoken leftist intellectual. But the one mistake he never made was to try to established 'leftist linguistics'. Contemporary 'AI ethics' feels like leftist activism with a very superficial understanding of machine learning technologies. Versions of "ML researchers are white males, so their creations inherit their biases"[1] are objectively wrong. Biases exists, but they come from the human-annotated training data fed into ML systems and not the gender of the programmer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial...
avereveard 6y ago
There's plenty of both, but Google specifically hired a majority of activist for this panel

meheleventyone 6y ago

It’s not necessarily unethical to do that if you believe you are uncovering or preventing the cover up of unethical behaviour. Ethics is more than following the rules. See whistleblower protections for where that sort of thing intersects with the law.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I just don’t see much reason to believe that she has the kind of evidence that would justify calling her a whistleblower. I could be wrong, and if she releases emails of Sundar being racist or something I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong, but it seems a lot more like she was just angry over the Gebru firing.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
Well yeah, but at the same time, exfiltrating internal company data is still grounds for dismissal. It could be ethical and the Right Thing to Do, but you still crossed a boundary. She's lost her job; if she's lucky that's the end of it. She can probably sue to get her job back or a compensation depending on whether a judge or jury rules that leaking the data served a higher purpose, but it's debatable.

Zarath 6y ago

What if Google is doing something unethical?

izacus 6y ago
Well, it'd be great to hear this from a respectable and ethical person and not someone who'll lie for their own gain, right?
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Because Google has a stellar ethical track record and would never lie for their own gain, right? I think they’ve exhausted the benefit of the doubt.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    The benefit of what doubt? No matter how much you distrust Google, we can’t really presume they’re guilty of hypothetical accusations that haven’t actually been made.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I’m just saying that we should take their version of the story with a massive grain of salt.
      - izacus 6y ago
        Then again the activists have proven to be pretty dishonest themselves. Timnit lied about who fired her, hid the fact that she gave an ultimatum and has now dedicated time to publicly smear and attack everyone at Google, including listing people who should be fired (by name!) on Twitter. Not to mention the abusive behaviour she showed towards the FB head of AI on Twitter who stopped posting as a result. She never apologised, although she demands apology from Google coworkers. The other activist was fired when she deployed political messaging code in production while hiding the whole process from her team and manager. Do those strike as a people that will honestly present their story and would be good to work with? Ones that happily lie and fudge the truth to drive their agendas? Because in my experience people who act like this, no matter what skin color they have, are corrosive and abusive to work with.

yholio 6y ago

Leaking sensitive material is not unethical by definition, some situations might impose a moral imperative to act in this manner. In the narrow ethical world of top down organizations, be they for profit corporations or the Army, it's of course a mortal sin, as is every other attempt to bring accountability to upper levels and redirect the flow of bullshit from top-down to bottom-up. I'll let you guess who decides what "ethics" stands for in this situation.

ranjitcool1 6y ago
That is such a subjective statement. One persons morals differ from another’s - a leak is a leak doesn’t matter what excuses one makes to justify it
slut 6y ago
Had it been an independent or much less related third party I'd tend to agree. However, with Mitchell's relation to and defense of Gebru, I'm not terribly sure I'd call this ethical, unless one is completely able to suspend their own biases. Getting caught doing this is bad judgement either way.
visarga 6y ago
> Leaking sensitive material is not unethical by definition, some situations might impose a moral imperative to act in this manner. Doesn't apply in this case. Snowden acted for the country, not for his dear friend who was fired in a scandal. Their supporters on Twitter raised hell and even made a cancel list of twitter users (AI researchers) who dared oppose their comments (Anima A.).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 6y ago

>If true, that is damning it's not damning and not unethical, it's the definition of whistle-blowing.

babesh 6y ago
There isn’t enough to tell based on the information provided. You are just viewing partial data with your biases. Haven’t we had enough of snap decisions based on personal biases?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  okay granted. I think it's likely whistleblowing given what we have heard about the treatment of Gebru so far. However what it is definitely not is 'damning', and at this point I'm out of goodwill for Google to be honest. Less of a bias and more a healthier attitude towards big business.
- Xelbair 6y ago
  so are people claiming that it is unethical. we just need to wait for more information.
  - babesh 6y ago
    Yes. That is the point. It could even be more nuanced.
mikejb 6y ago
Not every leak is a whistleblow. It depends on the content of the files. That verdict still needs to be made (depending on the content of the leaked files).

cm2187 6y ago

In banks, I'd say half of the cases of insider dealing I have seen in the news the past 5 years came from the compliance department.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> If true, that is damning Sure, and, if false, its also damning — in both cases, of Google management. Either: (1) They have received an early indication which may indicate either unauthorized or legally protected activity, and are publicly naming and blaming and specific employee before completing an investigation, which is merely grossly unprofessional and unethical though probably not actually illegal, or (2) They are lying and libeling a current employee.

fossuser 6y ago
Why do you think Google reached out to the press? I’d bet the employee leaking documents did, and Google just responded to a request for comment. It’s more the style of those players.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Why do you think Google reached out to the press? Why do you think I think that? I never said anything about who reached out to the press. > I’d bet the employee leaking documents did I bet they didn’t, because none of the articles include anything that the employee would have given them, only that they could not immediately be reached for comment. If that employee was the first source of information, then there would actually be some information from their perspective. > and Google just responded to a request for comment. The normal response (for a variety of good reasons, including legal and ethical ones) from a company on a matter like this when asked by the press when they haven’t completed an internal investigation would be to decline comment on personnel matters. Google’s behavior is grossly unethical here irrespective of who reached out to the media first.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    > "publicly naming and blaming and specific employee" They're not doing this if the press reaches out to them for comment with the specific details first. Given the bad faith actions of Gebru already (and apparently she's at least partially the source here from the other reply to your comment) it makes sense for Google to clarify with the response they gave (and in that response Google also did not mention the name of the employee). This issue is way too heated for real productive discussion on internet forums. It's obviously tribal, flamewar bait, with a massive undercurrent of partisan politics (and perceived partisan politics on the side of the person you're disagreeing with). I found what Gebru did earlier to be wrong, my prior is that the behavior here by the employee is also likely to be wrong. I've been generally disappointed in the level of discussion from the political fringes (both 'woke' and pretty much the entire GOP at this point). I find a lot of overlap between this Google AI ethicist community and critical race theory woke politics. I suspect in the end when all the details are out Google will be in the right. Without waiting there's no point for all the arguing that's going to go back and forth in these comments.