8 ms·

No qualms for Googlers getting a reality check. I don't get why people think they work at a liberal think-tank where no consequences exist for sharing opinions

No qualms for Googlers getting a reality check. I don't get why people think they work at a liberal think-tank where no consequences exist for sharing opinions or confidential data about the company publicly. Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot. Shut your mouth and move on if your ideology conflicts with your employer's.

freeone3000 6y ago
Hiring an ethics in AI research team presupposes you want to have ethics in your AI. It's disappointing, but not surprising, to find they want a bunch of syncopants. Perhaps they shouldn't have bothered creating the department if they didn't want people working there to speak out.
- kristianc 6y ago
  You’d have to think there was some middle ground between investigating and adding ethical accountability to AI programs and exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files.
  - saalweachter 6y ago
    Tangential anecdote. I was reading a book about dry stone bridges, and one of the bridges featured was built across a stream in a protected watershed. The builder said he was surprised the permit for it was approved, he told the client to expect it to be rejected. Talking to the government bureaucrats & scientists, he found out that they had to approve a permit every now and then. Not just because of political reasons, but strategic ones -- if they denied every permit, people would start ignoring and circumventing their department. By approving one every once in a while, they kept themselves in the loop as gatekeepers and prevented more harm than they would have by denying everything. His own bridge project was minimally harmful, and was the token approval so they could keep denying the real problem applications. I feel like there's a lesson there for other gatekeepers trying to fight the good fight.
    - tjalfi 6y ago
      This sounds like an interesting read, what's the title of the book?
      - saalweachter 6y ago
        I think it was from "How To Build Dry-Stacked Stone Walls" by John Shaw-Rimmington, but I pick up nearly every book I see on the topic so I can't be sure.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    In this context, it's very likely that you can translate "exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files" to "downloaded some of her emails", perhaps related to fear of retaliation
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      That is the same thing? In large companies I have never been allowed to export my emails, since it could be used to do this very exact thing.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        The point is that "exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files" can mean many things. It can mean, for example, downloading one's emails to have an independent record of them for fear of retaliation. It can also mean stealing company IP to try and start a competitor. Both may be equally forbidden by policy, but they're vastly different acts.
- johncena33 6y ago
  Everytime I see cases like activist employees getting fired for violating company policy, the sentiment seems to be the company is the bad guy. At what point it becomes the fault of the activist employee? At what point we can have an introspective look that are we enabling toxic behavior of people suffering from Messiah Complex? This is my personal anecdote. I had experienced working with an online activist co-worker. She was one of the people who are very popular online, but most of her co-workers hated her. She was extremely entitled, always bossed people (who are at the same level as her) around, did very little of her actual job because she was busy in more important online activism. She had a Messiah Complex, and we were all there just to support her in her worthy cause. That's why I am conflicted when I see activist employees getting fired.
  - microtherion 6y ago
    Sure, there are "activist employees", and sometimes companies may be justified in thinking that some of these employees engage in soapboxing to an extent that it's detrimental to the goals of the company or a distraction from their actual jobs, as you say. But if a company serially butts heads with people whose actual jobs ARE to hold said company accountable in some way, I find it suspicious. If a company keeps firing accountants "because they kept yapping about GAAP", wouldn't that raise a red flag with you? Or if a company told their auditor's managers that they'd take their business elsewhere unless more reasonable auditing standards were applied — a practice only all too common in the lead up to financial scandals. If a president keeps firing inspector generals because apparently they are all part of a Grand Conspiracy against America, wouldn't that be a bit suspicious? So if Google serially fires AI ethicists, some HN commenters keep insisting that all of them must have been uniquely unreasonable and toxic people, but my money would be on Google having increasing issues with being held to certain ethical standards. As an aside, paradoxically, it may not be a good sign either if such watchdogs stay at a company forever, appear to be perpetually content and grow highly prosperous. The reason why is left as an exercise to the reader.
- baxter34 6y ago
  So every company that has internal audits expects a bunch of syncopants? WTF? Internal audits ranging from a technical issue that impacted clients to sexual harassments investigations are all handled privately and details are shared AFTER the issue is handled. And the details shared are filtered to avoid legal liabilities/bad PR. An ethics team can certainly coexist with this, the same paper that caused this chain of events could have been shared internally, get a team on board to try to improve on those issues and later publish both the Parrots paper at FAccT and fixes simultaneously in a technical conference. Still the whole thing is sad because the research they were conducting is impactful
skissane 6y ago
> Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot I sometimes don't agree with decisions my (present and past) employers have made. But I'd never go to the media or public forums with those disagreements. If I thought it was so important that I had to do that, I'd resign first. I strenuously avoid making any public comment about my current employer. (Even past employers, I may be a little more open, but I'm still careful about what I publicly say – don't want to violate any confidentiality obligations, and don't want to unnecessarily burn bridges in case I want to seek re-employment or other commercial relations with them in the future.) If any of my employers (current or past) caught me downloading company documents/emails/etc in order to share them with the media or other external parties – I'd expect to be fired.
- eat_veggies 6y ago
  sorry about your backbone
  - dang 6y ago
    Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, and especially personal attacks? You've done the latter more than once recently and we ban that sort of account. Instead, if you'd please make your substantive points thoughtfully and without taking the thread further into flamewar hell, we'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- uh_uh 6y ago
  I'm curious, what will Mitchell's and Gebru's career prospects be from now on? After badmouthing their employer publicly, sharing internal communication, I just don't see who in their right minds would hire them.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    Many academic departments would certainly hire them - there are universities/departments who pretty much ignore such politics, and there are many universities/departments who would consider their stance as heroic and a bonus for hiring.
thundergolfer 6y ago
Which doc are you referring to? Could you link it? Your last sentence has the implication that people should not attempt the change or challenge from within the corporate capitalist ideology of the big tech companies, which together make up a large portion of the entire technology industry and the US stock market. They should just concede and “move on”. I’m kind of sympathetic to this view. Someone who joins a corporate law firm to “change things from within” is going to get a deserved skeptical smirk. It’s not just attempting to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools. It’s attempting the dismantling while standing next to the master inside his own house, asking him to pass the hammer.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  The reference is to this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uOUeLgdoLPfnx1JOErg2w/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO...
  - thundergolfer 6y ago
    Thanks.

freeone3000 6y ago

Hiring an ethics in AI research team presupposes you want to have ethics in your AI. It's disappointing, but not surprising, to find they want a bunch of syncopants. Perhaps they shouldn't have bothered creating the department if they didn't want people working there to speak out.

kristianc 6y ago
You’d have to think there was some middle ground between investigating and adding ethical accountability to AI programs and exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  Tangential anecdote. I was reading a book about dry stone bridges, and one of the bridges featured was built across a stream in a protected watershed. The builder said he was surprised the permit for it was approved, he told the client to expect it to be rejected. Talking to the government bureaucrats & scientists, he found out that they had to approve a permit every now and then. Not just because of political reasons, but strategic ones -- if they denied every permit, people would start ignoring and circumventing their department. By approving one every once in a while, they kept themselves in the loop as gatekeepers and prevented more harm than they would have by denying everything. His own bridge project was minimally harmful, and was the token approval so they could keep denying the real problem applications. I feel like there's a lesson there for other gatekeepers trying to fight the good fight.
  - tjalfi 6y ago
    This sounds like an interesting read, what's the title of the book?
    - saalweachter 6y ago
      I think it was from "How To Build Dry-Stacked Stone Walls" by John Shaw-Rimmington, but I pick up nearly every book I see on the topic so I can't be sure.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  In this context, it's very likely that you can translate "exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files" to "downloaded some of her emails", perhaps related to fear of retaliation
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    That is the same thing? In large companies I have never been allowed to export my emails, since it could be used to do this very exact thing.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      The point is that "exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files" can mean many things. It can mean, for example, downloading one's emails to have an independent record of them for fear of retaliation. It can also mean stealing company IP to try and start a competitor. Both may be equally forbidden by policy, but they're vastly different acts.
johncena33 6y ago
Everytime I see cases like activist employees getting fired for violating company policy, the sentiment seems to be the company is the bad guy. At what point it becomes the fault of the activist employee? At what point we can have an introspective look that are we enabling toxic behavior of people suffering from Messiah Complex? This is my personal anecdote. I had experienced working with an online activist co-worker. She was one of the people who are very popular online, but most of her co-workers hated her. She was extremely entitled, always bossed people (who are at the same level as her) around, did very little of her actual job because she was busy in more important online activism. She had a Messiah Complex, and we were all there just to support her in her worthy cause. That's why I am conflicted when I see activist employees getting fired.
- microtherion 6y ago
  Sure, there are "activist employees", and sometimes companies may be justified in thinking that some of these employees engage in soapboxing to an extent that it's detrimental to the goals of the company or a distraction from their actual jobs, as you say. But if a company serially butts heads with people whose actual jobs ARE to hold said company accountable in some way, I find it suspicious. If a company keeps firing accountants "because they kept yapping about GAAP", wouldn't that raise a red flag with you? Or if a company told their auditor's managers that they'd take their business elsewhere unless more reasonable auditing standards were applied — a practice only all too common in the lead up to financial scandals. If a president keeps firing inspector generals because apparently they are all part of a Grand Conspiracy against America, wouldn't that be a bit suspicious? So if Google serially fires AI ethicists, some HN commenters keep insisting that all of them must have been uniquely unreasonable and toxic people, but my money would be on Google having increasing issues with being held to certain ethical standards. As an aside, paradoxically, it may not be a good sign either if such watchdogs stay at a company forever, appear to be perpetually content and grow highly prosperous. The reason why is left as an exercise to the reader.
baxter34 6y ago
So every company that has internal audits expects a bunch of syncopants? WTF? Internal audits ranging from a technical issue that impacted clients to sexual harassments investigations are all handled privately and details are shared AFTER the issue is handled. And the details shared are filtered to avoid legal liabilities/bad PR. An ethics team can certainly coexist with this, the same paper that caused this chain of events could have been shared internally, get a team on board to try to improve on those issues and later publish both the Parrots paper at FAccT and fixes simultaneously in a technical conference. Still the whole thing is sad because the research they were conducting is impactful

skissane 6y ago

> Had someone on my team decided to write a similar doc like the one Margaret published, I'd have fired them on the spot I sometimes don't agree with decisions my (present and past) employers have made. But I'd never go to the media or public forums with those disagreements. If I thought it was so important that I had to do that, I'd resign first. I strenuously avoid making any public comment about my current employer. (Even past employers, I may be a little more open, but I'm still careful about what I publicly say – don't want to violate any confidentiality obligations, and don't want to unnecessarily burn bridges in case I want to seek re-employment or other commercial relations with them in the future.) If any of my employers (current or past) caught me downloading company documents/emails/etc in order to share them with the media or other external parties – I'd expect to be fired.

eat_veggies 6y ago
sorry about your backbone
- dang 6y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments, and especially personal attacks? You've done the latter more than once recently and we ban that sort of account. Instead, if you'd please make your substantive points thoughtfully and without taking the thread further into flamewar hell, we'd be grateful. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
uh_uh 6y ago
I'm curious, what will Mitchell's and Gebru's career prospects be from now on? After badmouthing their employer publicly, sharing internal communication, I just don't see who in their right minds would hire them.
- PeterisP 6y ago
  Many academic departments would certainly hire them - there are universities/departments who pretty much ignore such politics, and there are many universities/departments who would consider their stance as heroic and a bonus for hiring.

thundergolfer 6y ago

Which doc are you referring to? Could you link it? Your last sentence has the implication that people should not attempt the change or challenge from within the corporate capitalist ideology of the big tech companies, which together make up a large portion of the entire technology industry and the US stock market. They should just concede and “move on”. I’m kind of sympathetic to this view. Someone who joins a corporate law firm to “change things from within” is going to get a deserved skeptical smirk. It’s not just attempting to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools. It’s attempting the dismantling while standing next to the master inside his own house, asking him to pass the hammer.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The reference is to this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uOUeLgdoLPfnx1JOErg2w/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO...
- thundergolfer 6y ago
  Thanks.