5 ms·

Were they fired because they challenged the findings, or were they fired for their behavior after being told their paper wasn't up to snuff for some reason? Sa

Were they fired because they challenged the findings, or were they fired for their behavior after being told their paper wasn't up to snuff for some reason? Same thing with Timnit...was she fired(or "resignation accepted") because of a paper she was writing, or was she fired because of her behavior after being told the paper needed more review(or whatever)? I really doubt that Google is so wrapped up in the "computer designs chips better than humans" paper that they are firing anyone who sows dissent. A much more parsimonious explanation is the dissenter was welcome to dissent, but behaved in a fireable way after being told other people don't agree with them.

krona 5y ago
Exactly. This story doesn't add up to me - too much of a non-sequitur to fire someone for simply pointing out an inconvenient truth.
ghaff 5y ago
Publicly "fired for cause" would seem like a pretty spectacular overreaction to someone having an academic disagreement with ML vs. human performance in some domain of chip design. Sufficiently spectacular that I'm essentially certain there's more to the story. Timnit was at least in a more... fraught area.
- 21723 5y ago
  This. People get let go all the time and that's just how the game works, but if a company is publicly saying someone was "fired for cause", that means someone who outranks the lawyers is out to rape this guy's name, because that almost never happens otherwise.
- dekhn 5y ago
  Timnit was fired for cause- the cause was being a jerk to coworkers repeatedly (she repeatedly attacked internal researchers on internally public mailing lists in an unprofessional way). I still don't understand why Megan and jeff tried to pitch it as a resignation or that it was about that specific paper not being withdrawn (Megan didn't even understand the difference between a submitted paper being withdrawn, and a published paper being retracted). Either way, the outcome of that situation is: Jeff doesn't really run Research any more and Megan is permanently sidelined, and now Timnit has an independently funded institute where she can say whatever she wants (her current position is that techbros are eugenicists).
  - gwern 5y ago
    > the cause was being a jerk to coworkers repeatedly (she repeatedly attacked internal researchers on internally public mailing lists in an unprofessional way). No, the cause was her ultimatum email demanding the names of the reviewers among several other things (which she refers to as "simple conditions") or she quit, and then also emailing Googlers telling them to stop working. The first was the email her manager replied to saying they weren't going to meet her demand and her resignation was accepted immediately given her other email, rather than after a leisurely vacation and few months of wrapup like she wanted. (This is how Gebru apologists justify defining it as 'firing' rather than 'quitting', to make her look like more of a victim.)
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Those were all proximal causes, not ultimate causes. I don't think she was a victim, I'm not an apologist, but the way google fired her was still rather unprofessional and had some severe consequences for the people who did it which are obviously still playing out today. What's amazing is that if they're put her on a pip for textually assaulting her coworkers, she would have been gone in 6-12 months without as much noise.
      - themacguffinman 5y ago
        Few are really fooled by a PIP response like this. I'd fire anyone who would make the decision to give such a high profile activist 6-12 more months of authorization to internal company materials and direct contact with colleagues to lash out against the company with the not-so-hidden knowledge that they're on their way out. We already know that another colleague who sympathized with her attempted to exfiltrate company material after Gebru was summarily fired. Many companies will still immediately escort you from the premises if you quit amicably.
21723 5y ago
Scientists are pretty used to the idea of having their papers rejected. It happens all the time for all sorts of reasons. Never say never, but the likelihood that someone who's already gone through a PhD program would act out in some extreme way is low. Usually, these terminations have more to do with "He's getting close to something untouchable" than anything else. It happens to journalists, when they do their job a bit too well, also.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  I don't think you can quantify any of the claims that you made in your post. Is your argument that the "Computers can design chip components better than humans" paper is so fundamental to Google that they're silencing any critics? Conspiracy theories work better if there is even a kernel of truth to them. Maybe I could accept this if Chatterjee was rebutting advertising as a whole or something, but who exactly is so concerned about this specific paper?
  - lupire 5y ago
    If you write a paper, as happened here, claiming that your boss's greatest achievement is bogus, your employment might be in danger. Not because Sundar and the Board and large shareholders care, but because your boss cares.
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      Your boss can't just fire you at Google(unless you report directly to Sundar I suppose). Especially not "with cause". Whose greatest achievement was "Computers can design some chip components better than humans" that you are accusing of having fired Chatterjee?
- BeetleB 5y ago
  > Scientists are pretty used to the idea of having their papers rejected. By journals, not by their employers. It's actually quite unusual for researchers in industry have their papers blocked by their employers, as many have testified after that affair.

krona 5y ago

Exactly. This story doesn't add up to me - too much of a non-sequitur to fire someone for simply pointing out an inconvenient truth.

ghaff 5y ago

Publicly "fired for cause" would seem like a pretty spectacular overreaction to someone having an academic disagreement with ML vs. human performance in some domain of chip design. Sufficiently spectacular that I'm essentially certain there's more to the story. Timnit was at least in a more... fraught area.

21723 5y ago
This. People get let go all the time and that's just how the game works, but if a company is publicly saying someone was "fired for cause", that means someone who outranks the lawyers is out to rape this guy's name, because that almost never happens otherwise.
dekhn 5y ago
Timnit was fired for cause- the cause was being a jerk to coworkers repeatedly (she repeatedly attacked internal researchers on internally public mailing lists in an unprofessional way). I still don't understand why Megan and jeff tried to pitch it as a resignation or that it was about that specific paper not being withdrawn (Megan didn't even understand the difference between a submitted paper being withdrawn, and a published paper being retracted). Either way, the outcome of that situation is: Jeff doesn't really run Research any more and Megan is permanently sidelined, and now Timnit has an independently funded institute where she can say whatever she wants (her current position is that techbros are eugenicists).
- gwern 5y ago
  > the cause was being a jerk to coworkers repeatedly (she repeatedly attacked internal researchers on internally public mailing lists in an unprofessional way). No, the cause was her ultimatum email demanding the names of the reviewers among several other things (which she refers to as "simple conditions") or she quit, and then also emailing Googlers telling them to stop working. The first was the email her manager replied to saying they weren't going to meet her demand and her resignation was accepted immediately given her other email, rather than after a leisurely vacation and few months of wrapup like she wanted. (This is how Gebru apologists justify defining it as 'firing' rather than 'quitting', to make her look like more of a victim.)
  - dekhn 5y ago
    Those were all proximal causes, not ultimate causes. I don't think she was a victim, I'm not an apologist, but the way google fired her was still rather unprofessional and had some severe consequences for the people who did it which are obviously still playing out today. What's amazing is that if they're put her on a pip for textually assaulting her coworkers, she would have been gone in 6-12 months without as much noise.
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      Few are really fooled by a PIP response like this. I'd fire anyone who would make the decision to give such a high profile activist 6-12 more months of authorization to internal company materials and direct contact with colleagues to lash out against the company with the not-so-hidden knowledge that they're on their way out. We already know that another colleague who sympathized with her attempted to exfiltrate company material after Gebru was summarily fired. Many companies will still immediately escort you from the premises if you quit amicably.

21723 5y ago

Scientists are pretty used to the idea of having their papers rejected. It happens all the time for all sorts of reasons. Never say never, but the likelihood that someone who's already gone through a PhD program would act out in some extreme way is low. Usually, these terminations have more to do with "He's getting close to something untouchable" than anything else. It happens to journalists, when they do their job a bit too well, also.

oh_sigh 5y ago
I don't think you can quantify any of the claims that you made in your post. Is your argument that the "Computers can design chip components better than humans" paper is so fundamental to Google that they're silencing any critics? Conspiracy theories work better if there is even a kernel of truth to them. Maybe I could accept this if Chatterjee was rebutting advertising as a whole or something, but who exactly is so concerned about this specific paper?
- lupire 5y ago
  If you write a paper, as happened here, claiming that your boss's greatest achievement is bogus, your employment might be in danger. Not because Sundar and the Board and large shareholders care, but because your boss cares.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    Your boss can't just fire you at Google(unless you report directly to Sundar I suppose). Especially not "with cause". Whose greatest achievement was "Computers can design some chip components better than humans" that you are accusing of having fired Chatterjee?
BeetleB 5y ago
> Scientists are pretty used to the idea of having their papers rejected. By journals, not by their employers. It's actually quite unusual for researchers in industry have their papers blocked by their employers, as many have testified after that affair.