Google fires prominent AI ethicist Timnit Gebru

[Sauron]

Seems like they're more concerned with AI ethics than human ethics...

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

By chance did you read the email that forced google's hand?  She literally badmouths the company in an internal email

That's not usually grounds to get fired in most companies. Depending on the situation it may get you in trouble but instantly fired? Nah. HR are people too, they can overlook you having a bad day.

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I guess you'd also applaud Nazis for all the technological progress they've made?

nazis didn't actually make that much progress, they wasted most of their resources on pseudoscience and chased away their best scientists.

 

@Teddy07similarly, it's a misconception that the information Google collects is necessary for progress. More often than not it's only used to line their pockets by selling adverts, hardly a technological revolution if you ask me.

[LAwLz]

I just want to remind everyone to hear out both sides of an argument and not just base their entire stance on whatever side of the story spoke out first. 

People tend to leave out things that makes themselves look bad, or highlight things that make the other side look good. 

 

Pretty much no one who gets fired will blame themselves. They will blame their former employer and try and paint themselves in the best light possible, even if they were a piece of shit and deserved to be fired. 

 

I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but we don't really have any reason to assume the firing wasn't justified either. 

[charlie_root]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I just want to remind everyone to hear out both sides of an argument and not just base their entire stance on whatever side of the story spoke out first. 

People tend to leave out things that makes themselves look bad, or highlight things that make the other side look good. 

 

Pretty much no one who gets fired will blame themselves. They will blame their former employer and try and paint themselves in the best light possible, even if they were a piece of shit and deserved to be fired. 

 

I am not saying that this is what happened in this case, but we don't really have any reason to assume the firing wasn't justified either. 

True, and it doesn't even sound like she was "fired" from this quote from the article posted earlier:

 

Quote

Timnit responded with an email requiring that a number of conditions be met in order for her to continue working at Google, including revealing the identities of every person who Megan and I had spoken to and consulted as part of the review of the paper and the exact feedback. Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google.

So she didn't do what she was supposed to do, got told that she didn't follow their procedure, then sent an email saying "Do X, Y, and Z, or I resign".  Google responded with "Ok we accept your resignation then".

 

Moral of the story: don't give ultimatums like "do this or I quit" unless you're okay with quitting.

[SansVarnic]

-= Topic moved to General Discussion =-

Topic does not meet the definition of a Tech News topic per the CS.

[wanderingfool2]

20 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

So generally, I'm not convinced there's a moral hazard in named peer-review, especially within a company where employees are already supposed to be professional with one another. 

Except if it is an unnamed peer review, and you make it aware that they need to name the peers or you resign.  If it was a named peer-review then yea, but it obviously wasn't if she was requesting the names and details on what each peer reviewed.  At which point to me, it defeats the process and also is a disrespect to those who might have given their honest feedback on the concept of anonymity.  There might be a discussion on whether or not to have named peer-reviews but to request a non-named have the names released would be unfair to those reviewers.

 

20 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

And I have to be honest here, I agree with her that none of this sound like standard procedure for an internal paper review. The involvement of HR, confidentiality requirements, not being given the feedback, not being able to work on address the concerns, etc, all sound like extremely out of the ordinary. 

It doesn't sound like standard procedure...but that might also because it is coming from the person who feels wronged (and may be stretching what actually happened).  If it's true that she released the paper without following proper procedure herself, that would explain HR being involved...if she was also refusing to retract the article, that could be why they chose to go the confidentiality part.  To me, it still seems like someone who published a paper without authorization to and is having a tantrum that she isn't allowed to do/say what she wants to.

 

With Jean's email I am not sure it was meant as a tell all...just a way to tell their employees (which she emailed) that the situation isn't as one-sided as she made it out to be.

 

19 hours ago, Sauron said:

That's not usually grounds to get fired in most companies. Depending on the situation it may get you in trouble but instantly fired? Nah. HR are people too, they can overlook you having a bad day.

For someone in management, badmouthing the company/superiors in email and sending it to a bunch of people internally...yea, that would get you fired so instantly in most places I worked.  The email is clearly more than a "bad day".

 

A side note about why you can't always trust about the version of events

So according to her, she didn't "resign"...but also according to her she set conditions that had to be met for her to continue working.  If she can't truly understand why that is considered resigning then that's her fault not googles....but it does speak to her credibility of the events that took place (in that she considers it "lawyer speak" and that she didn't resign...when she clearly admits she made conditions to her continued work)

[Letgomyleghoe]

wow it's almost like she gave them an ultimatum, and got the answer she didn't expect. 

On 12/4/2020 at 9:02 AM, Den-Fi said:

Regardless of how right or wrong the firing was, you open yourself up for things like this when procedures are not followed.

she also gave an ultimatum it seems like 

Spoiler

After the email went out, Gebru told managers that certain conditions had to be met in order for her to stay at the company. Otherwise, she would have to work on a transition plan.

and is mad because she got the response she didn't want. I don't know what she means by "transition plan" but she sounds like she's gonna quit. It's not worth fighting for employees to stay, they'll end up leaving for no reason at a bad time eventually.

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 12/4/2020 at 9:04 AM, Teddy07 said:

I applaud Google 

I am against data privacy advocates or anyone else who hinders progress. 

the problem is there needs to be regulation, I'm sure you don't want anyone who cares enough to look knowing your, address, the names of your family members, net worth, past jobs, current job, criminal records, your family's criminal records, reasons for hospitalizations, schooling, grades, etc.

[Vishera]

On 12/4/2020 at 5:15 PM, BuckGup said:

How is this news at all? Companies have rules and guidelines. If you don't follow them you are probably going to get fired, it doesn't matter who you are either

Correct,it's because the verge see her as "a hero who fight for women and diversity".

Usual racist and sexist SJWs propaganda,you can find in the article more words that SJWs like to use: "racism","diverse"

 

And there is that:

Quote

Gebru is famous for her work on algorithmic bias, particularly in facial recognition technology. In 2018, she co-authored a paper with Joy Buolamwini showing error rates for identifying darker-skinned people were far higher than the error rates for identifying white-skinned people, in part because the datasets used to train algorithms were overwhelmingly white.

 

That article is so biased that it makes it invalid.

 

Just lock the thread,the article is just SJW propaganda.

[AlTech]

@Sauron @LAwLz  @HausOfLandau There's an update to the situation.

 

Apparently Google Employees are calling BS on Google's reason for firing/resigning her. At least one employee is claiming she was fired for releasing a paper that says Google's business model and algorithms are unethical.

 

The employee's boss didn't even know she was fired until the headlines hit the newspapers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/07/timnit-gebru-google-firing-resignation-ai-research

[Trik'Stari]

Google?

Ethics?

 

[Sauron]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

she was fired for releasing a paper that says Google's business model and algorithms are unethical.

> hire an ethicist

> fire her when she says you're behaving unethically

 

[JimmyHackers]

seeing as as chinsese youtube bot probably made by google deleted my youtube channel permanently.

 

id say this is right on key with their company direction.

 

who needs ethics when you can make profit.

[JimmyHackers]

https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21270290/youtube-deleting-comments-censorship-chinese-communist-party-ccp

 

unethical shit ass behaviour like this.

[spartaman64]

13 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

@Sauron @LAwLz  @HausOfLandau There's an update to the situation.

 

Apparently Google Employees are calling BS on Google's reason for firing/resigning her. At least one employee is claiming she was fired for releasing a paper that says Google's business model and algorithms are unethical.

 

The employee's boss didn't even know she was fired until the headlines hit the newspapers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/07/timnit-gebru-google-firing-resignation-ai-research

i mean she said on twitter herself that she gave them an ultimatum 

[wanderingfool2]

15 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

@Sauron @LAwLz  @HausOfLandau There's an update to the situation.

 

Apparently Google Employees are calling BS on Google's reason for firing/resigning her. At least one employee is claiming she was fired for releasing a paper that says Google's business model and algorithms are unethical.

 

The employee's boss didn't even know she was fired until the headlines hit the newspapers.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/07/timnit-gebru-google-firing-resignation-ai-research

The fact that some of the people who are petitioning though are calling it a firing still though really defeats the logical insight into this.  As I've pointed out (and quoted her twitter), she full out admits to making conditions regarding her employment that Google didn't accept.

 

Unless people were actually there, and know the reasoning they can't assume it's because "evil corporation".  Yes, there might be other papers that were published in a similar manor, but how many of those papers might end up being asked to be pulled.  How many of those papers directly insult the company you work for?  How many of those papers were retracted by the authors after the fact?  I'm not trying to pretend that Google is innocent in this, but there are always interoffice politics going on and how she's reacted on twitter and the email she sent out prior to her leaving screams to me that she would be the type of person who could create a toxic workplace environment (indirectly/directly)

[Blade of Grass]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The fact that some of the people who are petitioning though are calling it a firing still though really defeats the logical insight into this.  As I've pointed out (and quoted her twitter), she full out admits to making conditions regarding her employment that Google didn't accept.

Just to be clear, under California employment law, it sounds like Google did fire her. An employee expressing intent to resign but not providing a specific resignation who is then cutoff from work and pay has been fired. From my understanding, she did not provide that specific resignation (i.e. I resign effective day xyz), so Google couldn't "accept" anything. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

Just to be clear, under California employment law, it sounds like Google did fire her. An employee expressing intent to resign but not providing a specific resignation who is then cutoff from work and pay has been fired. From my understanding, she did not provide that specific resignation (i.e. I resign effective day xyz), so Google couldn't "accept" anything. 

Not being argumentative on the point you gave, just do you happen to have the source (couldn't find it...since would like to read the surrounding text).

 

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

At least from the the Employment Development Department in California, it would really fall into the category of "Constructive Quit", as she gave them a choice which gave them no other options (i.e. Accept her demands or she will work on the last day of her employment)...while she might not specifically have said "I resign effective xyz" by stating her continued employment was contingent on conditions being made, that effectively is resignation (and again, by sending out an email blasting management etc in an unprofessional way they were really given no other options)

 

[Blade of Grass]

29 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Not being argumentative on the point you gave, just do you happen to have the source (couldn't find it...since would like to read the surrounding text).

 

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

At least from the the Employment Development Department in California, it would really fall into the category of "Constructive Quit", as she gave them a choice which gave them no other options (i.e. Accept her demands or she will work on the last day of her employment)...while she might not specifically have said "I resign effective xyz" by stating her continued employment was contingent on conditions being made, that effectively is resignation (and again, by sending out an email blasting management etc in an unprofessional way they were really given no other options)

 

https://cuiab.ca.gov/board/precedentdecisions/docs/pb39.pdf

 

Legal precedent. Essentially, worker said they will resign with an effective date in the future, employer cut them off, paid them out and then claimed they resigned to the labour department (which would disqualify them from government benefits). On appeal the court agreed that since they terminated the employee earlier than their date of resignation, they should be qualified for benefits. Some dots connecting required, but basically, if the employee resigned and the courts agreed then they would be disqualified, since the courts said they're qualified they can't have resigned and thusly were fired. 

 

Regarding the resignation specifics, I don't have a source for that from California, it's generally more of a common law principle? Without specifying terms a contract is generally unenforceable. Resignations, although unilateral, still need to have all the specific elements that make them binding--names, effective dates, etc. 

 

I believe "Constructive Quit" is about failure to continue follow the employment contracts, not about employees requesting changes to internal policy and those changes not being made. The examples listed on your link speak of a truck driver losing their license and someone refusing to join the union for their union position, both of which would prevent them from carrying out their responsibilities in their employment contract. 

[wanderingfool2]

45 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Legal precedent. Essentially, worker said they will resign with an effective date in the future, employer cut them off, paid them out and then claimed they resigned to the labour department (which would disqualify them from government benefits). On appeal the court agreed that since they terminated the employee earlier than their date of resignation, they should be qualified for benefits. Some dots connecting required, but basically, if the employee resigned and the courts agreed then they would be disqualified, since the courts said they're qualified they can't have resigned and thusly were fired. 

In that case though, the employer took the resignation and actually fired the worker.  Had they said, here is your final paperwork and payout to your resignation date I am betting that it wouldn't have succeeded.  (On top of which they had determined she had done nothing wrong at her work to qualify her of early dismissal).  There might be some things that apply to this situation, but the way I view this the legal precedent is effectively saying if an employee gives notice the employer can't unilaterally decide they have to leave early (without at least paying them for that time).

 

In short, the courts only ruled that if an employee gives a resignation date the employer can't pick the final date of work.

 

I don't know though, unless it really goes to court and they fight over it I doubt you will hear Google's side of the story.  I don't really have much sympathy for someone that makes an ultimatum or work on a last day, claims not to have resigned and sends around internal emails blasting the company you work for. 

[Blade of Grass]

6 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I don't know though, unless it really goes to court and they fight over it I doubt you will hear Google's side of the story.  I don't really have much sympathy for someone that makes an ultimatum or work on a last day, claims not to have resigned and sends around internal emails blasting the company you work for. 

But here's the thing, she didn't have a planned last day, they just booted her out at the end of the day, day of. Google said to an employee "We won't do what you've asked, good bye you resigned", and that's just not how resignations are supposed to work. California especially talks about the "moving party", and in any case where an employee says "I think I might resign in the future" and the employer goes "ok you resigned goodbye", I would say the predominant mover to end the working relationship was the employer. In most jurisdictions (California included), people that actually file resignations with future effective dates are allowed to rescind the resignation. 

 

You're right though, unless this goes to court obviously she will say she was fired, and Google will say she resigned. 

[Drama Lama]

On 12/4/2020 at 6:21 PM, Teddy07 said:

They donˋt want to kill us

as long as letting us live is more profitable than killing us

[wanderingfool2]

27 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

But here's the thing, she didn't have a planned last day, they just booted her out at the end of the day, day of. Google said to an employee "We won't do what you've asked, good bye you resigned", and that's just not how resignations are supposed to work. California especially talks about the "moving party", and in any case where an employee says "I think I might resign in the future" and the employer goes "ok you resigned goodbye", I would say the predominant mover to end the working relationship was the employer. In most jurisdictions (California included), people that actually file resignations with future effective dates are allowed to rescind the resignation. 

She might not have had a planned last day, but she made it clear that if her -demands- weren't met she would work on a last day (from her own admission...she could very well have said even more definitive words that aren't released by Google due to privacy).

 

I really view her as the "moving party", again due to the fact she made a demand that was dependent on her staying (along with the email).  Yes, she didn't give an exact date, but by making a demand without specifying an exact date I think she put it more into Google's hands.  (Going back to the argument of Constructive Quitting)

Quote

In some cases, the employee is deemed to have left work voluntarily even though the apparent cause of termination is the employee's discharge by the employer. Such a leaving is designated as a constructive voluntary leaving and it occurs when an employee becomes the moving party by engaging in a voluntary act or in a course of conduct which leaves the employer no reasonable alternative but to discharge the employee and which the employee knew or reasonably should have known would result in his or her unemployment

Making a demand and sending an email to everyone insulting upper management...I think that she really would fit into being the moving party.

[Blade of Grass]

10 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

She might not have had a planned last day, but she made it clear that if her -demands- weren't met she would work on a last day (from her own admission...she could very well have said even more definitive words that aren't released by Google due to privacy).

 

I really view her as the "moving party", again due to the fact she made a demand that was dependent on her staying (along with the email).  Yes, she didn't give an exact date, but by making a demand without specifying an exact date I think she put it more into Google's hands.  (Going back to the argument of Constructive Quitting)

Making a demand and sending an email to everyone insulting upper management...I think that she really would fit into being the moving party.

The workplace clearly moved to severe the relationship, which you agree by saying it was "in Google's hands." Again, constructive quitting doesn't fit, there's no inability to carry out the contract. 

 

Let me put it another way, if your work told you that you resigned, you didn't resign. Honestly, I don't know why this point is hard to understand. Resignations are supposed to be voluntary, if you do not feel like you voluntarily resigned, it was not a resignation. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

The workplace clearly moved to severe the relationship, which you agree by saying it was "in Google's hands." Again, constructive quitting doesn't fit, there's no inability to carry out the contract. 

 

Let me put it another way, if your work told you that you resigned, you didn't resign. Honestly, I don't know why this point is hard to understand. Resignations are supposed to be voluntary, if you do not feel like you voluntarily resigned, it was not a resignation. 

She literally has admitted that she made demands that were required to be met in order to keep working.  It's not that hard to understand that if she presented Google with 2 options, that is why it was "in Google's hands".  Google had the 2 options, settle her demands or accept her as leaving the company.  Resignations are typically voluntary, but again constructive quitting isn't really voluntary resignation is it.

 

Again the quote from the law regarding constructive quitting

 

Quote

Such a leaving is designated as a constructive voluntary leaving and it occurs when an employee becomes the moving party by engaging in a voluntary act or in a course of conduct which leaves the employer no reasonable alternative but to discharge the employee

The fact is simple.  She admitted on Twitter that she made requirements needed for her to continue working. [Willing to bet it was an even more heated/demand she sent them...after all this is garnered from her twitter in which she believes she didn't resign].  It doesn't speak anywhere about "inability to carry out the contract", that would match constructive quitting but that doesn't mean it's the only way.  So let me pose this question to you, what do you think Google's options were when faced with an employee making a statement that their work was contingent on demands being met?

[igormp]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Google had the 2 options, settle her demands or accept her as leaving the company. 

Instead what they did was to fire her. If they accepted her resignation, then they would ask her for a final date (which she also mentioned). That simple detail, along with the instant block of all her accounts doesn't sounds like a regular resignation from the employee's part.