While they were a jerk, it actually was far more specific than that. According to Jeff's response, first they bypassed a 2-week review process:

> Unfortunately, this particular paper was only shared with a day’s notice before its deadline — we require two weeks for this sort of review — and then instead of awaiting reviewer feedback, it was approved for submission and submitted.

Then, when called out on it, they made "an ultimatum" and said they would leave if certain demands weren't met. I'm not sure what every demand was, but one of them was indeed disclosing the name of the reviewers.

> 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.

Jeff declined to meet the conditions, and let them go. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

And this is what HN has devolved to, calling a leading Ethical AI researcher a douche!

> a leading Ethical AI researcher a douche!

Ex-ethical AI researcher, we don't know what her next job will be, and she certainly lost an opportunity to lead by losing her place at Google. We are yet to see if this maneuver will cost her social capital or add to her reputation. Also, do you seriously believe being an ethics researcher automatically excludes one from misconduct?

From what we know so far, she seems to have overplayed her hand, assumed she should be treated above rules and when failed at it wanted to take names and encouraged mutiny, in a company where she is a junior manager. Not only there are actual legal complications for a manager to do that, it also sounds like narcissistic and toxic.

Her goals might be laudable, but she have executed poorly and emotionally, and lost an immediate chance to deliver ongoing impact for the ethics causes she cared about. I hope aspiring activist-ethicist-researcher-techies take note of this. Tantrums don't deliver long term impact. Narcissism clouds your judgement. Impassioned supporters mislead you. You have great power, if you wield it responsibly and pay attention not to overestimate it.

While there is some overlap, generally speaking Identity Politics != Ethics. She's an Identity Politics researcher, narrowly focused on race and gender topics. Not some philosopher or religious figure interested in the flourishing of humanity at large. Here is an abstract from a larger work, presumably her PhD thesis: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06165.pdf. Critical gender and race theory through and through.

Amen. Her paper is citing dated problems in AI models. These problems have been known for at least 4-5 years, and the responsible AI community has been working on it. No progress mentioned. The paper read like an editorial rather than actual AI research.

You're trying to discredit her for... writing a well-sourced paper on race & gender discrimination in AI.

Well written, well sourced and very narrow for someone that fashions themselves as 'ethicist'. There are more things in life beyond race and gender as seen through the prism of critical race/gender theory. I heard somewhere of this strange word 'love', something to look into. She's young, smart, capable and possibly well meaning in spite of her unbecoming behavior. Perhaps one day she'll grow to see the struggle common to all born of a woman.

You can be both a brilliant scientist (I'm not claiming Gebru is one) and a douche. They're not exclusive.