They may be allowed to, but they're fools if they think world-class academics are going to work for them under draconian publishing standards that are not even consistently specified. I'm sure Gebru could get a tenured position at a university of her choice. They're throwing away a lot by choosing to die on this hill.
?
I suggest it might be 'foolish' to imply that 'a 2 week quick review with minor additions' are anything remotely 'draconian'.
Just the opposite -- this is a siren call to great researchers who want to be highly paid and work on great and novel things, full well knowing Google has a very light review process, won't interfere or suppress.
This makes Google sound like a great place to do research, probably better than most public institutions.
yeah that's super draconian.
ESPECIALLY if other people in your department are claiming no one else has to go through this, just one of the few black women! Damn!
They can't have their cake and eat it too; if they want hire people to do AI ethics research, and then censor them for doing their job, then they should get called out for ethics-washing, which is exactly what's happening.
I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent.
This is false.
The requirement for a fairly light review process, and asking for more, truthful, factual and contextualizing information to be disclosed is not censorship.
Nobody is suppressing research, or even asking that specific opinions or results be changed.
The commenter above used the term 'draconian' to refer to this process, which is just superlatively false.
"I don't know why so many people love to defend power, especially when that power is not benevolent."
How is this power not benevolent exactly?
What's 'hard to understand' is the petulance and irreverence people have for the offices and responsibilities they hold, and the lack of professionalism in their conduct.
This should have been an easy issue to address by any mature researcher who cared about working with others to achieve positive outcomes - instead of trying to force their opinion on an organization, or engender public support for their career.
There are plenty of reasonable voices at the table for 'Ethics in AI' nobody has a magic wand in this equation.
This is ethics for Google's AI+Search which is currently undergoing global scrutiny, particularly by Congress and specific politicians who are considering anti-trust measures against Google - and who believe that 'their political party is being treated unfairly'.
It's existential concern for them right now, relating to the possible breakup of the company.
Every public communication on 'ethics' or search results etc. at Google is obviously going to have to be reviewed.
If you're publishing the latest thing on 'AI Random Number Generation' obviously nobody cares about anything other than IP.
The fact is, she must have known this and submitted anyhow - which is in and of itself not so bad, but that there was calamity afterwards ... there is no excuse.
Google was absolutely reasonable - they did not ask to change the nature of the research, but wanted to make sure that information about new, better processes were included.
It's beyond gracious for Google to do this, when really their starting point is 'silence' and they really don't have to do anything at all.
A request for a fairly short review with very basic and reasonable concerns blew up.
This is not a public university, you don't get perfectly tenured academic freedom, if Google wants to put a reasonable subnote in there - and take 2 weeks to do it, it's perfectly fine.
Obviously Google would have kept her if they wanted to, but it's clear they were both looking for a way to part ways and it's probably for the better.