Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team.
I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...
AI has at least as much potential to be dangerous, ethical constraints on it are important when you consider the failure of common sense and community good will for SN and BD. However, every berk going latched onto the idea that they could write some sort of rubbish about "applying type 1 and type 2 thinking in AI design" or "why robots can't really be people" and have founded community dedicated to promoting themselves and getting money at the expense of insight and real work and real constraints developed by people who know what they are on about and can really help.
You are right about the humanities types - the otherside of the coin is that there is a definite class of insight that should come out of social sciences and history that is relevant here. Unfortunately those fields are dominated by bullshit artists which means that the signal to noise ratio is very very low.
Per the article, "Google has recruited top scientists with promises of research freedom, but the limits are tested as researchers increasingly write about the negative effects of technology and offer unflattering perspectives on their employer's products."
Like... these AI researchers are delusional if they think their work is truly unbiased and that they can work at a company and get paid by that company to produce unbiased research. If I took that job at Juul even though it was ridiculous $$ I would have known what I was getting into and who was buttering my bread.
It's either sell your soul and move to industry and enjoy the industry $$ or stay in academia and enjoy your moral purity and being able to look yourself in the mirror at the end of the day but not being able to buy a house in the Bay Area.
It's just a bitch that for-profit company lobby for no regulations, and fire people who speak up to power.
However, we all know company culture do not tolerate speaking up to power. So these people also went about it the wrong way, and going public too soon over something that was just theoretical.
What you need to do is gather evidence, and escalate as security violations internally. Use the proper channels. This is harder work than crying wolf, obviously.
This is incredibly spot-on way to describe navigating through delicate office channels to create change and also not ruffle too many feathers. Well said! Can you sit on my shoulder please and advise me real-time throughout my career? Comments like this are why hacker news is so much better than reddit!
It seems that the issue here is that Google didn't hire dispassionate ethical researchers able to deal with a wide range of ethical issues; instead it hired activists with a precise, narrow agenda. People who think that the world itself is biased (including the company they work for and their own management) and that Google should change its products to enact a change upon it. Once these activists have found themselves cuddled the most powerful company in the world and showered with praise and money, it seems their egos just started inflating until they burst.
I have a very hard time believing you can retain much moral purity after all the publish, publish, publish, grants and will they or won’t they tenure drama. At least the motives of the company hiring you to do research for them are clear.
Researchers can publish anything they like as long as it's uncontroversial. Google sponsors tons of work for which there is no oversight.
But if you're going to directly make the company look bad, then yes, it's delusional.
It's one thing to protect whistle blowers, it's another thing to make bad public statements. The previously fired researcher wanted to demonstrate how training AI was energy intensive and that was a problem, though in the grand scheme it may not be i.e. it's not as though model training is a primary source of energy draw. Google wanted to review the work and asked her to include more recent information about how Google had actually improved energy consumption process given the old data set from the research.
That's perfectly reasonable. Corporate HQ asks the researcher to include more recent data which doesn't make the company look so bad? On a scale of 1-10 in terms of interference that's a 1 or 2. I suggest the vast majority of researchers would be fine with that, and consider it ethical.
Juul probably hires scientists more along the lines of cigarette companies wanting to provide science to show that cigarette smoking is not harmful. That's another thing altogether.
My wish is for companies to stop outputting "research" and researchers to work for the correctly aligned institutions...and accept the pay cut that comes with it.
But i agree that many of the people who have such job titles, and make it into the media, seem to be wingnuts
You can be as cynical as you want but the fact Google fired them with little rhyme or reason and destroyed their team is BAD thing, we should be upset at Google for it.
I hace no expertise in the field of AI ethics, and I'm not sure what to think about the Timnit drama in general, but I don't think what you're saying here is really accurate. There can be a lot of value in pointing out problems even if you're not the one who can provide a solution. If no-one else has spotted the problem then pointing it out can draw the attention of those who might know how to fix it before things get worse.
If you can say "hey, there's a flaw in the design of this rocket that means it'll explode if we launch it, wasting millions of dollars" then that's valuable to your company, even if you don't know how to design a rocket that works.
Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.
I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify (emailing company info out of company).
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.
I can see them being just willing to take the loss on the wrongful termination if they get to smear her on the way out and think they can get her to accept a deal in the end that comes with a more stringent NDA.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...
> This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.
She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice".
> 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.
Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.
I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.
Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way?
1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job 2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) 3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation 4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google 5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work 6. Google "accepted" her resignation.
I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true.
They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.
You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California law.
Particularly when I explained how your undertanding of California law is mistaken, and doubly so when the crux of your misunderstanding is what a resignation consists of.
> ... California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) ...
_If_ it was a resignation in the first place, which requires the employee to set the end date. That is not this situation.
"Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?"
"Is it obviously lying to say resigned?"
These are two separate questions.
Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)
You've given no citations that "US law" is somehow different than California law here. I've stuck to the specific citations directly applicable to their situation, but the idea that if the employer is the one who specifies the end date of employment, it's a firing not a resignation is pretty universal across the western world.
And yes, using "everyday language" to make public statements about a legal situation that if you used the legal definition you'd be making the opposite statement is very much a lie.
Additionally, even the "everyday language" argument has you making a distinction between "voluntary quit" and "voluntarily leave a job or other position". The crux is that if the employer specifies the end date, it's not voluntary on the part of the employee. Both under legal definitions and common parlance.
California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.
Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work.
[1] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667
They didn't just say she resigned. They said they accepted her resignation. You can't accept what wasn't offered.
Next line
> On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit
It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose.
She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".
"Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water.
To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances.
You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.
I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore.
You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie.
If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks.
You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar?
That doesn't seem right to me.
They said her employment was terminated immediately. So no more pay.
Gebru was able and willing to continue working at the time Google terminated her employment. So it was involuntary in California law and English.[1]
"An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1]
Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2] So she was willing to continue working that long at least.
[1] http://carules.elaws.us/code/t.22_d.1_subd.1_d.1_pt1_ch.5_ar...
[2] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667
Easy to understand example: You say you will quit in 2 weeks. The company fires you on the spot. If people ask the company what happens do you think it is more accurate for them to say you were fired? Would you prefer a company to say you were fired if that happened to you and you used them as a reference?
Pretty sure almost everyone would see that as you quitting and not you being fired. Legally you were fired but in practice you quit.
I would say they fired me after I gave notice. Saying I resigned would be inaccurate. What I would want them to say doesn't matter. Gebru wanted them to say they fired her. And she didn't give notice.
I would say I resigned before they could fire me if it was the other way around. Or resigned under duress if that's what happened. I know people who did. None of them said they were fired.
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".
I don’t think this matters from a PR perspective and millions later vs whatever now is hard arithmetic.
They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers.
Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?
These people are looking for drama. They're looking for attention and their name attached as some kind of martyr.
The entitlement is insane, you can't work at Google, earn $450k salary and then start a culture war inside Google and create a massive impossible to quantify damage to the company morale and sow discord.
I am siding with Google here.
So I guess we'll find out, when she either files this suit or does not. But if you were a lawyer at Google, would you have let this statement go out without quadruple demanding to see the proof?
2. She hasn't denied the accusations.
So once again, why assume Google has the moral high ground (in any way) in this firing or is being honest at all in it?
> She could of downloaded documents for an attorney or to search for the allegations Timnit was accused of
This would support Google's description of events as "exfiltrating a bunch of documents related to Gebru".
They also have a second source close to Meg that confirms she was running a script to exfiltrate a bunch of documents related to Gebru.
Perhaps she made a dumb mistake but Dr Gebru and her colleague were both managers, and it wouldn’t surprise me if this script her colleague was running was not just backing up her emails but rather pulling management-only and HR docs related to Gebrus situation. Which would be a much more serious offense and explain a lot of what’s going on here.
Any lawyer would tell her not to comment on the accusations. Especially before she was fired.
Now, I can see if she wanted to take a few key e-mails out because any lawsuit needs some evidence or it might be quashed in summary judgement. So maybe that's what she thought she was doing, but it sounds like she grabbed a lot more than that. I would also really be wary of this because people can get death threats when e-mail that they thought was company internal are leaked out. I wouldn't be surprised that a bunch of e-mails will make it into a lawsuit with the people's names on them. Anyone knows that lawsuits can easily take an e-mail out of context to make it say something that is changed by the context around it. Even worse, company internal e-mails probably have a tremendous amount of internal company information.
There is no way that any company will just shrug and go, well if you sent it to yourself and your lawyer, then that it's okay that you might have sent out company secrets.
She could have taken files that weren't material. But that's just speculation.
Google claimed the documents went to multiple external accounts. So they must know which accounts. So Mitchell could say who owned them. And they could verify.
Any lawyer will tell you to preserve evidence yourself if you can.
How would people sympathetic to her cause preserve evidence without violating Google's policies?
What might be disclosed during the trial is the same as if Google provided the files.
An employee's working conditions are not company secrets. They have a legal right to discuss them.
I'm also not sure what you mean by employees are allowed to discuss working conditions. Are you assuming that the only e-mails/documents that she took are related to working conditions? There is no current evidence that is what she took. Or do you mean something else? Because the only public statement from Google alleges she took a large number of e-mails/documents from Google, not that she was fired for discussing working conditions. We'll have to wait for a lawsuit from her to find out further details though.
Also, I have to ask, why didn’t she just print them? Or take screen pics with her phone? Emailing things from work directly to external parties seems rather dumb for a computer expert.
Do you think Google doesn't monitor printing?
I can imagine a lawyer saying to send the documents directly and not send them to herself. It helps show she didn't distribute them to anyone else. CCing a paralegal would still make it multiple accounts.
Err... yes? Google is an employer which has the right to terminate employees as it wants. It doesn't owe you an explanation.