Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlthoughts2018 | Hacker News Reader

mlthoughts2018

You appear to be mistaken on nearly all the facts about the Gebru situation. Given this it seems clear we would draw very different conclusions. Anyone claiming Jeff Dean lied must be so disconnected from the actual facts and so prejudiced to blame Google and view Gebru’s actions as acceptable that their opinion amounts to nothing but partisan gainsaying.

To be clear, it’s ok to disagree with Jeff Dean or to dispute his charitability in accepting Gebru’s ultimatum-based resignation, but to claim he publicly lied is beyond the pale.

View on HN

Yes, he literally lied by omission. Internally, there’s an entire data analysis available for viewing. We have literally asked senior leadership why his email does not align with facts and we have not gotten a response. Internally, you can also read the exact feedback that Timnit’s paper received. Like I said, I’m assuming you don’t work at Google because even if you didn’t like Timnit and just think she’s a whiny researcher, there’s no way possible that you could say that Jeff Dean didn’t lie.

Besides the 2 week thing, he also misrepresented the “list of demands” to make it seem like it was worse than it actually was. So much so that I’m even surprised he was allowed to publish the email publicly.

I can’t imagine a single lawyer looked at his email, honestly.

Hypothetical but likely scenario below.

Jeff Dean: “Oh, you say she made a list of demands. Ok, let me put that in the email. Oh, you said there’s this 2 week deadline that she didn’t follow. Ok, let me put that in the email. What else do you want me to add?”

I believe the question you should be asking is _who_ told him these things. Please guess.

It really isn't. He lied. Normalize calling out corporate executives when they lie.

I wish he hadn't. I'm disappointed that he did. But I don't know how else to describe sharing statements one knows (or should know) to be false.

No, he really, really didn’t lie. I wish people predisposed to only see Google as being on the wrong side of it would stop saying stuff like this.

I'm a Google employee who, I think most would claim is generally on Google's side of things.

He lied. There are falsehoods that he knew (or had a responsibility to know) were false in a public statement he put his name on. They've been repeatedly corrected both by other employees and by data.

Specifically, he at least lied about a 2 week requirement for paper reviews in the internal publication approval process. While that's listed as a further requirement, they don't "normally" require two weeks.

(I wouldn't, for example call the resignation statements lies. Those were unintentional falsehoods)

I doubt we will come to any common ground here. If you think that Timnit Gebru did not resign, it’s probably not possible for us to convince each other of anything, given that I view that as a core, irrefutable fact bolstered by tons of corroborating accounts. The idea that whether it was or wasn’t a resignation (it irrefutably was) can even be called into question whatsoever is completely incompatible with the facts. That attempt to subvert reality was retrofitted onto the situation later, once the consequences of her inappropriate actions had set in for Gebru.

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing it as "her departure", and my understanding of California law is that her "departure" would be classified as a dismissal, not a resignation, though ultimately this depends on very particular specifics that aren't public, such as when her last paydate was, however what I've seen seems to suggest that it would lean towards dismissal. [0]

For what its worth, I don't think "threatening to resign" is the same as resignation. Much as I don't think "threatening to shoot someone" is attempted homicide.

[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-mem...

That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

I don't see how the CEO refusing to continue to say she resigned bolsters the claim she resigned.

> calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

Alternatively: publicly calling it a firing is essentially an admission of guilt. That's the one thing Google's lawyers would insist Google cannot do.

Presumably neither one of us are the experts on EEOC and employment litigation strategies. So instead I'm going to take the statements at face value. And at face value: Google is no longer willing to state that Dr.Gebru resigned. Anything else is spin.

The CEO didn’t refuse to say she resigned. He refused to say she was fired and refused to contradict earlier statements of her resignation.

> He refused to say she was fired

I agree! He also refused to say she resigned. Fancy that!

The important thing to note is that one of these was a change in behavior and one was not.

It’s disgusting that you literally have two Google employees providing you the truth and you just keep saying “No, you must be mistaken.” I have eyes, I can read. I have a brain that functions very well. A lie is a lie is a lie. And even if lawyers some how manage to button this up, it’s still a lie in the court of public opinion...

EDIT: Sorry, I understand that you don’t have as much information as us and you’re just going off based on tweets and stuff. But come on. It’s insulting to be lied to like that. I hope you can understand that feeling at least.

I think (know for a fact) they were lies also. There was no huge list of demands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com