25 ms·

What was the profit motive behind hiring her? I’m not challenging; I’m genuinely interested and baffled by these moves. I’d like to understand that chain of lo

by jl2718 5y ago

What was the profit motive behind hiring her? I’m not challenging; I’m genuinely interested and baffled by these moves. I’d like to understand that chain of logic that ends in money.

ivraatiems 5y ago
I can't speak for Google, but something like this would be my guess: Google has an issue with public perception where people avoid its products because Google's AI is creepy. The idea that the Internet knows too much about you is definitely a Thing in the culture. Also, Google knows that people perceive it as not diverse, and not good to minorities or other protected groups who work for it. Google wants to be perceived as a serious company that takes its obligations to the world and to the computer science community (open source, AI research, etc.) seriously. Finally, somebody like Dr. Gebru, who is genuinely smart and knowledgeable, can probably make Google's products better in the process (per the article, sounds like she did). Google believes it will do more business by some reasonable amount (perhaps not huge, so long as it's more than Dr. Gebru's compensation) if it appears to be addressing these three things above, in the eyes of at least some of the people who care about those things, and even if it doesn't, the work Dr. Gebru actually does is work Google thinks will help it make money by making its products better. Put another way: If Dr. Gebru is a smart, productive, diverse face for Google's AI, it is much easier to believe Google's AI is friendly and "ethical" than if it's some white business-guy with no credentials, at least amongst the constituencies Google would like to convince to support it, and Dr. Gebru has knowledge areas Google wants to exploit for profit, just like any employee. If Dr. Gebru is the face of this part of Google's business, more people will be willing to come and work for Google on it, and, presumably, to eventually buy or at least not badmouth Google's services. So it's not a direct line to profit. It's public perception --> hiring ability --> profit, or public perception --> marketing --> profit, or making GMail's suggestions less sexist --> avoid scandal --> avoid loss of profit. But all of this pales in comparison to public critique of Google's products --> perception problems --> loss of profit, plus it probably hurts a bunch of peoples' feelings internally, so Dr. Gebru is fired. Does that help clarify?

by jl2718 5y ago

What was the profit motive behind hiring her? I’m not challenging; I’m genuinely interested and baffled by these moves. I’d like to understand that chain of logic that ends in money.

ivraatiems 5y ago

I can't speak for Google, but something like this would be my guess: Google has an issue with public perception where people avoid its products because Google's AI is creepy. The idea that the Internet knows too much about you is definitely a Thing in the culture. Also, Google knows that people perceive it as not diverse, and not good to minorities or other protected groups who work for it. Google wants to be perceived as a serious company that takes its obligations to the world and to the computer science community (open source, AI research, etc.) seriously. Finally, somebody like Dr. Gebru, who is genuinely smart and knowledgeable, can probably make Google's products better in the process (per the article, sounds like she did). Google believes it will do more business by some reasonable amount (perhaps not huge, so long as it's more than Dr. Gebru's compensation) if it appears to be addressing these three things above, in the eyes of at least some of the people who care about those things, and even if it doesn't, the work Dr. Gebru actually does is work Google thinks will help it make money by making its products better. Put another way: If Dr. Gebru is a smart, productive, diverse face for Google's AI, it is much easier to believe Google's AI is friendly and "ethical" than if it's some white business-guy with no credentials, at least amongst the constituencies Google would like to convince to support it, and Dr. Gebru has knowledge areas Google wants to exploit for profit, just like any employee. If Dr. Gebru is the face of this part of Google's business, more people will be willing to come and work for Google on it, and, presumably, to eventually buy or at least not badmouth Google's services. So it's not a direct line to profit. It's public perception --> hiring ability --> profit, or public perception --> marketing --> profit, or making GMail's suggestions less sexist --> avoid scandal --> avoid loss of profit. But all of this pales in comparison to public critique of Google's products --> perception problems --> loss of profit, plus it probably hurts a bunch of peoples' feelings internally, so Dr. Gebru is fired. Does that help clarify?