4 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - monocasa 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. They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. > ... And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data? No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      > They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The general rule has been "Would a reasonable person who read this letter conclude they had the intention of quitting if their conditions were not met?". And Gebru's letter really made it seem like she has every intention of quitting if her conditions were not met. So this is definitely not lying in an easily verifiable way. > No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). This is probably true, I'm not saying we know the whole story. I'm arguing that it is highly probably(>90%) she exfiltrated data from Google. > The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers. This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move.
      - monocasa 6y ago
        > But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.
        JamesBarney 6y ago
        https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her. It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
  - whoooooo123 6y ago
    I think the following things are facts: 1. Gebru said "do this or I'll resign" 2. Google said "okay, we accept your resignation with immediate effect" 3. Under California law this is considered a firing, not a resignation (at least according to the discussion elsewhere in this thread). Does this mean that Google lied when they said she resigned? I don't think so. Facts 1 and 2 are sufficient to establish that she "resigned" by anyone's typical understanding of the term. Fact #3 strikes me as little more than a legal technicality. She might not have "resigned" from a legal pov but we don't have to restrict our understanding of that word to the precise semantics of California employment law - just like it might be truthful to say that someone (OJ?) is "guilty" of a crime even if a California court deemed them to be "not guilty".

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?
- monocasa 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. They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. > ... And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data? No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    > They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The general rule has been "Would a reasonable person who read this letter conclude they had the intention of quitting if their conditions were not met?". And Gebru's letter really made it seem like she has every intention of quitting if her conditions were not met. So this is definitely not lying in an easily verifiable way. > No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). This is probably true, I'm not saying we know the whole story. I'm arguing that it is highly probably(>90%) she exfiltrated data from Google. > The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers. This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      > But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her. It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  I think the following things are facts: 1. Gebru said "do this or I'll resign" 2. Google said "okay, we accept your resignation with immediate effect" 3. Under California law this is considered a firing, not a resignation (at least according to the discussion elsewhere in this thread). Does this mean that Google lied when they said she resigned? I don't think so. Facts 1 and 2 are sufficient to establish that she "resigned" by anyone's typical understanding of the term. Fact #3 strikes me as little more than a legal technicality. She might not have "resigned" from a legal pov but we don't have to restrict our understanding of that word to the precise semantics of California employment law - just like it might be truthful to say that someone (OJ?) is "guilty" of a crime even if a California court deemed them to be "not guilty".