This is probably the core of the conflict there - there are researchers that aim to remove technical bias from technical systems and expect to stop there, not going into social issues of how the systems will be applied, as they consider that (e.g. solving the biases in the society) as a separate issue.

Dr. Gebru, among others, expects and insists that they do go beyond that and try to get involved in the social consequences of tech. They refuse, ergo conflict.

>I assume she thinks that Yann has enough intellectual capacity to improve situation of biased ML but doesnt execute.

Yann has no obligation to do so on Twitter, and shouldn't be called out by coworkers publicly regarding that decision, in my opinion.

> The point is that she has an expectation of Yann to go further than just stating a fact.

Yann was talking about a specific model, she was talking about ML & society on a grand scale. Can't we talk about specific things now? Why did he have to apologize for it?

My feeling is that Timnit is using people, she guilt trips, humiliates them online, makes a big fuss and it's all to whip up support in her crusades. She wants to win the public opinion by any means, so she needs famous opponents to pile on, such as Yann and Dean (who have universal admiration in the field). She's always playing the victim. I find this kind of behavior toxic, it degrades dialogue.

One of Jenny Holzer’s truisms is: you owe the world, not the other way around.

Isn’t Gebru an “AI researcher”, after all?

I don't think that's what she meant. You are filling in the blanks that she should have filled herself.

Although that is a bit overreaching of an expectation in my opinion, I agree it would be good if Yann was a bit more explicit.