10 ms·

It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombs

It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team. I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...

jeffbee 6y ago
A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits. Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Unlikely I think as if they weren’t iron clad, they would muffle up and prepare for the wrongful termination lawsuit that will only be greater if they lie about the departure. Since a lie would be slander, damage reputation and lead to lots more money. I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify (emailing company info out of company).
    - tdeck 6y ago
      A wrongful termination lawsuit will drag on for years, and won't conclude until the discontent surrounding this particular issue has dissipated.
      - prepend 6y ago
        Certainly, but that’s monetary damages. I don’t think this matters from a PR perspective and millions later vs whatever now is hard arithmetic.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      How much is a wrongful termination going to cost them? Max a couple million? How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. I can see them being just willing to take the loss on the wrongful termination if they get to smear her on the way out and think they can get her to accept a deal in the end that comes with a more stringent NDA.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        > How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. Very few people really care about this issue enough to permanently change their behavior. My family was pretty upset about Gebru firing but when I visited all of their computers were still defaulting to search Google instead of Bing or duckduckgo. A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. Also she hasn't denied the accusation.
        monocasa 6y ago
        > A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. We already know they lied about firing Gebru. > Also she hasn't denied the accusation. The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements. But right now what we have is Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru Meg: no comment And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
- marricks 6y ago
  Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly. They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers. Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Why give people benefit of the doubt when they're publicly throwing people under the bus? These people are looking for drama. They're looking for attention and their name attached as some kind of martyr. The entitlement is insane, you can't work at Google, earn $450k salary and then start a culture war inside Google and create a massive impossible to quantify damage to the company morale and sow discord. I am siding with Google here.
  - cornel_io 6y ago
    Accusing a fired employee in such a public way of stealing documents could be argued to be blowing up her career forever. That's maybr 20 years at let's say 600k/year, ballpark what someone her level was making there (maybe even low, sheay have been L7+). That's a chunky enough defamation suit that it shouldn't be hard to find a really solid firm to defend you on spec, and it'd be worth enough that it would be pretty crazy not to pursue. So I guess we'll find out, when she either files this suit or does not. But if you were a lawyer at Google, would you have let this statement go out without quadruple demanding to see the proof?
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      It wouldn't be the first time Google miscalculated legal risk.
JamesBarney 6y ago
1. Lying about why an employee fired in an easily verified way is a huge unforced error. We can probably assume Google is not that incompetent. 2. She hasn't denied the accusations.
- marricks 6y ago
  She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of. Google will of course phrase it as damningly as possible. So once again, why assume Google has the moral high ground (in any way) in this firing or is being honest at all in it?
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    I'm not assuming Google has the moral high ground. I'm assuming that Google is not lying about an easily verifiable fact to the media especially when Meg is not disputing Google's events. > She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of This would support Google's description of events as "exfiltrating a bunch of documents related to Gebru". They also have a second source close to Meg that confirms she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of documents related to Gebru.
    - Cacti 6y ago
      I’m curious why there needs to be a script involved and feel like we are missing a big part of the story here. You don’t need “a script” to search your email. And you don’t need to take the risk to “exfiltrate documents” if it’s just emails in your possession or if you’re just worried about being fired. And it doesn’t make sense that a computer expert would take the risk to do all this electronically where it is easily monitored. Perhaps she made a dumb mistake but Dr Gebru and her colleague were both managers, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this script her colleague was running was not just backing up her emails but rather pulling management-only and HR docs related to Gebrus situation. Which would be a much more serious offense and explain a lot of what’s going on here.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
oh_sigh 6y ago
Well the good news is, they open themselves up to lawsuits or adjudication by making false claims about the reason for firing someone. So we can just wait and see if those are forthcoming
totalZero 6y ago
Some of these "AI ethics researchers" seem like wingnuts, and their profession appears to serve more of a PR purpose than a business purpose. What am I missing? Why are they so essential? Are these people the canaries in the coal mine, or do they simply exist because of paranoia and political correctness?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gregorygoc 6y ago
  Your observations are correct. Its the latter.
- sgt101 6y ago
  It's a bit of a tragedy to be honest. We/I lived through both developing social networking and big data, and it's pretty clear that the community made huge mistakes that both hurt loads of people and we can't really take back or clear up at this point. Bad things happened to innocent people. Bad people got power over good people and did bad things with it. AI has at least as much potential to be dangerous, ethical constraints on it are important when you consider the failure of common sense and community good will for SN and BD. However, every berk going latched onto the idea that they could write some sort of rubbish about "applying type 1 and type 2 thinking in AI design" or "why robots can't really be people" and have founded community dedicated to promoting themselves and getting money at the expense of insight and real work and real constraints developed by people who know what they are on about and can really help.
  - creato 6y ago
    I think most of the "AI ethics" thing is two things: first, for people that are actual AI practitioners, it makes "AI" seem a lot more powerful and interesting than it is. I think AI is a small part of the example problems you mentioned. Second, it's a way for humanities types to wedge themselves into a hot, high paying field.
    - deleted 6y ago
dbbk 6y ago
> It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word Err... yes? Google is an employer which has the right to terminate employees as it wants. It doesn't owe you an explanation.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  And we don't owe them the benefit of the doubt if they don't care to explain themselves.

jeffbee 6y ago

A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.

monocasa 6y ago
Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits. Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.
- prepend 6y ago
  Unlikely I think as if they weren’t iron clad, they would muffle up and prepare for the wrongful termination lawsuit that will only be greater if they lie about the departure. Since a lie would be slander, damage reputation and lead to lots more money. I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify (emailing company info out of company).
  - tdeck 6y ago
    A wrongful termination lawsuit will drag on for years, and won't conclude until the discontent surrounding this particular issue has dissipated.
    - prepend 6y ago
      Certainly, but that’s monetary damages. I don’t think this matters from a PR perspective and millions later vs whatever now is hard arithmetic.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    How much is a wrongful termination going to cost them? Max a couple million? How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. I can see them being just willing to take the loss on the wrongful termination if they get to smear her on the way out and think they can get her to accept a deal in the end that comes with a more stringent NDA.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      > How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO. Very few people really care about this issue enough to permanently change their behavior. My family was pretty upset about Gebru firing but when I visited all of their computers were still defaulting to search Google instead of Bing or duckduckgo. A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. Also she hasn't denied the accusation.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. We already know they lied about firing Gebru. > Also she hasn't denied the accusation. The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements. But right now what we have is Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru Meg: no comment And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
marricks 6y ago
Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly. They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers. Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Why give people benefit of the doubt when they're publicly throwing people under the bus? These people are looking for drama. They're looking for attention and their name attached as some kind of martyr. The entitlement is insane, you can't work at Google, earn $450k salary and then start a culture war inside Google and create a massive impossible to quantify damage to the company morale and sow discord. I am siding with Google here.
- cornel_io 6y ago
  Accusing a fired employee in such a public way of stealing documents could be argued to be blowing up her career forever. That's maybr 20 years at let's say 600k/year, ballpark what someone her level was making there (maybe even low, sheay have been L7+). That's a chunky enough defamation suit that it shouldn't be hard to find a really solid firm to defend you on spec, and it'd be worth enough that it would be pretty crazy not to pursue. So I guess we'll find out, when she either files this suit or does not. But if you were a lawyer at Google, would you have let this statement go out without quadruple demanding to see the proof?
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    It wouldn't be the first time Google miscalculated legal risk.

JamesBarney 6y ago

1. Lying about why an employee fired in an easily verified way is a huge unforced error. We can probably assume Google is not that incompetent. 2. She hasn't denied the accusations.

marricks 6y ago
She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of. Google will of course phrase it as damningly as possible. So once again, why assume Google has the moral high ground (in any way) in this firing or is being honest at all in it?
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I'm not assuming Google has the moral high ground. I'm assuming that Google is not lying about an easily verifiable fact to the media especially when Meg is not disputing Google's events. > She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of This would support Google's description of events as "exfiltrating a bunch of documents related to Gebru". They also have a second source close to Meg that confirms she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of documents related to Gebru.
  - Cacti 6y ago
    I’m curious why there needs to be a script involved and feel like we are missing a big part of the story here. You don’t need “a script” to search your email. And you don’t need to take the risk to “exfiltrate documents” if it’s just emails in your possession or if you’re just worried about being fired. And it doesn’t make sense that a computer expert would take the risk to do all this electronically where it is easily monitored. Perhaps she made a dumb mistake but Dr Gebru and her colleague were both managers, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this script her colleague was running was not just backing up her emails but rather pulling management-only and HR docs related to Gebrus situation. Which would be a much more serious offense and explain a lot of what’s going on here.
pseudalopex 6y ago

oh_sigh 6y ago

Well the good news is, they open themselves up to lawsuits or adjudication by making false claims about the reason for firing someone. So we can just wait and see if those are forthcoming

totalZero 6y ago

Some of these "AI ethics researchers" seem like wingnuts, and their profession appears to serve more of a PR purpose than a business purpose. What am I missing? Why are they so essential? Are these people the canaries in the coal mine, or do they simply exist because of paranoia and political correctness?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gregorygoc 6y ago
Your observations are correct. Its the latter.
sgt101 6y ago
It's a bit of a tragedy to be honest. We/I lived through both developing social networking and big data, and it's pretty clear that the community made huge mistakes that both hurt loads of people and we can't really take back or clear up at this point. Bad things happened to innocent people. Bad people got power over good people and did bad things with it. AI has at least as much potential to be dangerous, ethical constraints on it are important when you consider the failure of common sense and community good will for SN and BD. However, every berk going latched onto the idea that they could write some sort of rubbish about "applying type 1 and type 2 thinking in AI design" or "why robots can't really be people" and have founded community dedicated to promoting themselves and getting money at the expense of insight and real work and real constraints developed by people who know what they are on about and can really help.
- creato 6y ago
  I think most of the "AI ethics" thing is two things: first, for people that are actual AI practitioners, it makes "AI" seem a lot more powerful and interesting than it is. I think AI is a small part of the example problems you mentioned. Second, it's a way for humanities types to wedge themselves into a hot, high paying field.
  - deleted 6y ago

dbbk 6y ago

> It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word Err... yes? Google is an employer which has the right to terminate employees as it wants. It doesn't owe you an explanation.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
And we don't owe them the benefit of the doubt if they don't care to explain themselves.