Critical to that credibility is actually having the same standards as Harvard with respect to allowing the researchers to publish what they will, whether or not they're the target. By appearing to fire Gebru because her paper was insufficiently pro-Google, they damaged their whole purpose of having an ethical AI group.
The demands of the group may seem childish or absurdly far-reaching, but if Google wants to rebuild their credibility here, this is the standard they have to hit. Otherwise, their own researchers have less credibility because their output will be viewed as "approved by Google management", not real research. This is critical if they need to say "our own AI ethicists say this is ok."
And I don't think anyone's disputing her desire to promote and encourage ethical implementations of AI technology. The crux of this issue is how you handle yourself, and it seems the more I read about how she handled these things, the more it seems like how children act.
"If I don't get my way, I'm quitting!"
Yeah, you get to sit atop your high horse and lord your morality over the rest of the mortals beneath you. You don't actually get to do shit, though, and you've actively lost the ability to control how this unfolds, at least at Google.
They're clearly unhappy, and so are many google employees. This clearly isn't just one person, this clearly is bigger than that.
> You'd be hard-pressed to find an ethical issue with how Edward Snowden handled the revelation of mass illegal spying on the American people.
What ethical issue is there with the revelation of problems in the ethical AI division of google? You just "don't like how they act." I've heard many people say the same of individuals on street corners...not a great look.
Their job is to build a bulwark for the company to guard it against negative press, and that will allow Google to create an AI that leverages all its data and currently existing infrastructure to increase shareholder value. They actually think their job is to prevent bad things from happening. Its not, and that's where the confusion is occurring. That confusion is turning into frustration, which in turn becomes anger.
You'll probably say something like, "Well that's a cynical viewpoint..."
Any company's "Ethics" committee/board is there to do that. Just like Human Resources is there to protect the company from you, not you from the company.
The only problem is that entirely too many Googlers think they're actually employed to make the world a better place. They're employed to create shareholder value. Sometimes making the world a better place will align with increasing shareholder value. Sometimes it won't.
Just because it's their "job" doesn't make it right or not worthy of whistleblowing.
If companies are doing bad things we want whistleblowers to tell us. I just don't understand your argument - "you can do bad things if it's your job." No. It doesn't work that way.
You can't do illegal things. Difference.
Either way if we didn't have whistleblowers for very bad things that weren't illegal, we would never make laws to make them as such.
Did he contact any of the number of Congressmen or Senators who are sympathetic to his concerns to see what could be done before committing treason?
Maybe the reason it isn't praised in this case isn't due to her being a woman of color but due to other differences in this case and those that are praised?
Perhaps we shouldn't just sweep it under the rug. It seems there is very real merit, this was not just a disgruntled employee. The subject matter is directly related to diversity - to remove race is to, again, cover up the systemic race issues we face as a society.
HN has a large audience with a broad range of opinions. In my opinion, Snowden and Manning are traitors and the latter should have been left in prison.
> Had a white male done this, it's hard not to think he'd be praised as a hero on here.
I'd be equally dismissive of any person who committed the following actions.
1. Griping about the racist reviewers of her paper on Twitter.
2. Sending an email to a internal list criticizing Google's behavior and telling people to stop working on diversity.
3. Demanding the names of reviewers and threatening to resign if they weren't provided.
Just like any large audience a hive mind exists. There are more posts in favor of Snowden/Assange on here than in favor of this google employee. In general, more come to their defense, than hers, despite doing similar things.
Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country.
I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change?
If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.
These cases are completely different.
Snowden and Assange exposed a global surveillance network that many are opposed to. I think of Snowden as the Kim Philby of the 21st century but that's a different discussion.
Dr. Gebu disagreed with the peer reviews of a paper, threatened to resign, and Google accepted her resignation.
> Those aren't why you're dismissive. You've made up your mind on her, and make those items "dismissive" to support your POV, because you can't actually prove one way or the other. Perhaps some of the reviewers are racist. We've seen in the past 4 years that racism is alive and well in this country.
She may feel that her paper was rejected because the reviewers are racist; I think it's more likely that they disagreed with the quality of the work. There was probably an administrative screw-up with its submission, though.
Neither of us can prove anything. It's unlikely that all the facts will come out in any event; Google would settle the case if it went to court.
> I don't see a problem with sending an internal email to colleagues. Should everyone just fall in line and do everything asked ever and never want change?
Have you read the email (https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...) that she sent? Would you expect to keep your job if you sent a similar email at work? Diversity is the third rail of modern companies - criticize or discourage it and you're gone.
> If she is publicly publishing a paper, reviewers should publicly publish their reviews, especially if they're negative. At this point, if we don't know the reviewers, we can't tell if they're genuine reviews, or not.
Anonymous peer reviews are a standard practice in industry and academia. If you demand the names of reviewers and threaten to resign if they aren't provided then don't be surprised if your employment ends.