4 ms·
> "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. Give
by 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.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> They’re not doing this if the press reaches out to them for comment with the specific details first. The press didn’t have the specific details until given them by Google, which is the “naming and blaming”. The press had a report from another party of an apparently nonfunctional corporate email address. Describing the existence and basis of an internal investigation that had not been completed from that is grossly unprofessional; I’d be mildly surprised if it was done by a small outfit where media inquiries were regularly fielded by someone with no corporate PR, HR, or legal training, advice, or guidance, but for anything at Google’s scale it is unimaginable as anything but a conscious, deliberate breach of norms with the intent of harming the subject employee in public without developing a full picture of the facts, and that’s assuming Google’s statement is completely truthful as far as it goes.