3 ms·

Exactly, perhaps people read too many comic book with these one dimensional villains to think that an employee asked Google to be more ethical and then they fir

by gerash 5y ago

Exactly, perhaps people read too many comic book with these one dimensional villains to think that an employee asked Google to be more ethical and then they fired them right there and you could hear an evil laugh in the background. I've looked at some of the correspondence between Timnit and others and it's fairly unprofessional on her part if you ask me and it has this self righteousness tone to it too. Another very funny thing people believe is that Google wanted to do "evil" things but their perfectly crafted plan fell apart at the last second when they realized that they have "do no evil" in their code of conduct. After much scrambling the order came from the top to quickly remove it to unblock the evil plans. That said, there sure are jerks at Google like any other company but I've realized most these dramatic stories regurgitated by the media is BS

burnished 5y ago
Do you think she got fired for those reasons? Citing her as sounding self righteous or unprofessional seems weak.
- jollybean 5y ago
  She was not fired, she quit. She was publishing studies critical of Google, Google wanted at least the right to have studies of the company reviewed and to include more updated information etc. which is extremely gracious on the part of Google. She gave the company an ultimatum i.e. 'Change the Terms or I Quit' so they said 'We're not changing the terms, we accept your resignation'. It's galling how many people (and their supporters) think that they have a right to be employed by a company and then publicly criticize them with misleading information, unmitigated or reviewed by the company.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    That’s true for academics getting grants (being able to publicly critizise the one that gave them). Why would it not be true for academics being directly bankrolled by a company?
    - pridkett 5y ago
      No - the foundation of your question is a bit misaligned. The major difference is that as much as corporate research likes to pretend they’re academics, they’re not. In corporate research you’re not after some unalienable absolute truth that benefits society - you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary. Sometimes those two align and that’s great. But anyone that thinks that an experienced researcher at a corporation will have the seem freedom as a tenured professor is missing something. In exchange for this tradeoff you get a lot better salary and don’t have to feel like all of your time is spent chasing grants.
      - Aeolun 5y ago
        > you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary So you are doing research within a slightly more defined scope. If you still call it research then the results are completely separate from your affiliation. If not, it’s not research, it’s just propaganda.
- gerash 5y ago
  I'm not privy to the full details so idk but I provided my perspective based on what I'd witnessed which makes me believe she was fired/forced resigned because of how she approached issues at work (giving ultimatums / looking for identities of her reviewers, harassing LeCun on Twitter, etc)
Sebb767 5y ago
> Another very funny thing people believe is that Google wanted to do "evil" things but their perfectly crafted plan fell apart at the last second when they realized that they have "do no evil" in their code of conduct. Of course the CoC is not binding, but having that in there was a statement, which meant, roughly interpreted, "the impact of our work should not be net negative". The removal of the line itself did not change anything, of course, but it was a clear statement that this priority had been dropped. I think it's quite obvious why this is seen as not great.
- gerash 5y ago
  First of all it's still there if you haven't checked for yourself: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ Second, if you were wearing "I'm a good guy" badge on your shirt and later on decided to go rogue and work for the enemy, would you then remove that badge right away? Of course not unless you're truly incompetent at being bad. I'd understand it if they got rid of the wording because of how much headache it creates for them. Btw, that's basically why government and business officials often resort to saying the least informative statements. Because every word and sound bite will be used against them.
cruano 5y ago
> After much scrambling the order came from the top to quickly remove it to unblock the evil plans. Well otherwise it would be considered securities fraud

by gerash 5y ago

burnished 5y ago

Do you think she got fired for those reasons? Citing her as sounding self righteous or unprofessional seems weak.

jollybean 5y ago
She was not fired, she quit. She was publishing studies critical of Google, Google wanted at least the right to have studies of the company reviewed and to include more updated information etc. which is extremely gracious on the part of Google. She gave the company an ultimatum i.e. 'Change the Terms or I Quit' so they said 'We're not changing the terms, we accept your resignation'. It's galling how many people (and their supporters) think that they have a right to be employed by a company and then publicly criticize them with misleading information, unmitigated or reviewed by the company.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  That’s true for academics getting grants (being able to publicly critizise the one that gave them). Why would it not be true for academics being directly bankrolled by a company?
  - pridkett 5y ago
    No - the foundation of your question is a bit misaligned. The major difference is that as much as corporate research likes to pretend they’re academics, they’re not. In corporate research you’re not after some unalienable absolute truth that benefits society - you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary. Sometimes those two align and that’s great. But anyone that thinks that an experienced researcher at a corporation will have the seem freedom as a tenured professor is missing something. In exchange for this tradeoff you get a lot better salary and don’t have to feel like all of your time is spent chasing grants.
    - Aeolun 5y ago
      > you’re doing research that can benefit the company that is paying your salary So you are doing research within a slightly more defined scope. If you still call it research then the results are completely separate from your affiliation. If not, it’s not research, it’s just propaganda.
gerash 5y ago
I'm not privy to the full details so idk but I provided my perspective based on what I'd witnessed which makes me believe she was fired/forced resigned because of how she approached issues at work (giving ultimatums / looking for identities of her reviewers, harassing LeCun on Twitter, etc)

Sebb767 5y ago

> Another very funny thing people believe is that Google wanted to do "evil" things but their perfectly crafted plan fell apart at the last second when they realized that they have "do no evil" in their code of conduct. Of course the CoC is not binding, but having that in there was a statement, which meant, roughly interpreted, "the impact of our work should not be net negative". The removal of the line itself did not change anything, of course, but it was a clear statement that this priority had been dropped. I think it's quite obvious why this is seen as not great.

gerash 5y ago
First of all it's still there if you haven't checked for yourself: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct/ Second, if you were wearing "I'm a good guy" badge on your shirt and later on decided to go rogue and work for the enemy, would you then remove that badge right away? Of course not unless you're truly incompetent at being bad. I'd understand it if they got rid of the wording because of how much headache it creates for them. Btw, that's basically why government and business officials often resort to saying the least informative statements. Because every word and sound bite will be used against them.

cruano 5y ago

> After much scrambling the order came from the top to quickly remove it to unblock the evil plans. Well otherwise it would be considered securities fraud