[miked85]

She gave her employer an ultimatum, threatening to quit if she didn't get her way. They called her bluff. I don't see how that is the same as being fired.

At that point she was on her way out, one way or another; most employers would rather not work with people like this.

[telltruth]

Initially I took Google's side given Gebru has history of bullying so aggressively and has no qualms to play race/gender cards at every opportunity she gets. But now that more details (including the paper in question) has been revealed, it's hard to stay on Google's side. It is clear that the peer review process that Jeff Dean had described has been optional for all intent and purpose. It says along similar lines that right there on their internal website. Too many Googlers have attested that they have bypassed the process with no consequences. Gebru's paper itself has no real technical novelty. There was no reason to fire her. It doesn't seem out of line that Gebru was befuddled, frustrated and made a threat on the basis that she had right for the information. Jeff Dean could have easily offered her feedback and transparency in decision process. He could have agreed to let her make corrections later in the submission process. He did none of that and doesn't want to come out clean.

Having said that I still feel Gebru is extra-ordinarily self-entitled person. Few months ago she insisted that Jeff Dean take her side in Twitter feud she initiated. She has the mindset of either you are with me all the time or you are racist+misogynist. She complains about "micro agressions" towards her from everyone but she herself is super aggressive. When disagreement arise, she marks you down as enemy and launches attacks to destroy you completely with sole purpose of making you homeless, jobless and making sure your kids die of hunger. I wouldn't wish upon her as colleague to anyone. You might have right to disagree with me but this is what I have felt. I still take her side in this current episode nonetheless because I think she is on the right side.

Ultimately we are all playing opinion game here and only few people knows what really happened.

[telltruth]

Citation: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k77sxz/d_t...

Sample comment:

Another ex-colleague here. I was not going to participate in the discussions but your post made me realize objective truth should come out. I do believe she actually thinks she is making the world a better place but in reality any interaction with her has been incredibly stressful having to carefully weigh every move made in her presence. When this blows over her departure will be a net positive for the morale of the company.

To give a concrete example of what it is like to work with her I will describe something that has not come to light until now. When GPT-3 came out a discussion thread was started in the brain papers group. Timnit was one of the first to respond with some of her thoughts. Almost immediately a very high profile figure has also also responded with his thoughts. He is not Lecun or Dean but he is close. What followed for the rest of the thread was Timnit blasting privileged white men for ignoring the voice of a black woman. Nevermind that it was painfully clear they were writing their responses at the same time. Message after message she would blast both the high profile figure and anyone who so much as implied it could have been a misunderstanding. In the end everyone just bent over backwards apologizing to her and the thread was abandoned along with the whole brain papers group which was relatively active up to that point. She has effectively robbed thousands of colleagues of insights into their seniors thought process just because she didn't immediately get attention.

The thread is still up there so any googler can see it for themselves and verify I am telling the truth.

[rafiki6]

I think that's a balanced view. The fact is, Google might have constructively dismissed her because of her history and attitude and they knew if they outright fired her, it would be a PR nightmare. Letting her resign like this makes it much more complex and doesn't open them up to any serious threat of litigation.

She can try to sue them, but now that she made it public it's quite unlikely any court would look at it.

All in all, it's obvious Google didn't follow their own supposed research protocols, but this whole thing is much more complex and I think it has very little to do with her paper.

[that_guy_iain]

> All in all, it's obvious Google didn't follow their own supposed research protocols, but this whole thing is much more complex and I think it has very little to do with her paper.

She still had a job after she published the paper, she still had a job after she told people to stop working, she stopped having a job after she demanded confidental HR records of people who feared giving her rather simple feedback.

[thu2111]

It's really sad watching people bend over backwards trying to give this person a break.

You admit she's a bully, super aggressive, constantly makes spurious accusations of racism, attempts to destroy her enemies totally and is in general a nightmare employee in every way. Then you say you take her side because Dean could have given her "transparency"? Are you aware she was demanding the identities of people who had criticised her work, presumably so she could then go and bully them too?

This person is a 100% A+ straightforward case of someone who should be fired and in fact should have been fired long ago. All those attributes are the sort of thing that absolutely qualify someone for dismissal. If you were feeling trollish, you might even say it's black and white.

[confidantlake]

Agree 100%. We should not be protecting bullies regardless of race, gender, position in the company whatever. If you don't treat people well you are out.

[Arech]

I haven't seen much by myself, but I witnessed that flame with Y.LeCunn and that alone gave a lot of information.

I can't understand WHY so many people obviously think that it is totally fine to be behave utterly unethical, especially when a person whose behaviour is in question is "professional ethics researcher". Looks like they think that a big goal justifies the means. Welcome to Russia circa 1917, or Germany of 193x.

Insanity((

[confidantlake]

I didn't even know that she had a history of bullying before I concluded she was in the wrong. My incomplete understanding is she submitted a paper, google said it was not submitted in time and they made her retract it, and in response she demanded the names of those who reviewed the paper or else she would resign. That is completely unacceptable behavior and they were right to accept her resignation. The fact that she has a history of bullying makes it even worse for her. Of course they aren't going to give her the names of those people so she can bully them too.

[PunchTornado]

What I do know is that you don't hire a PR team to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good.

You don't hire an ethicist to make you look bad. You hire them to make you look good at what you do: diversity in AI. Gebru failed at her job.

[raxxorrax]

I think you aren't necessarily wrong that internal committees like this are about PR. It is simple industry self-regulation. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.

But that would also mean Google exploited her for that.

[dmarchand90]

I think the subtle, yet important, difference is that she said she would quit by a certain date and they terminated her immediately.

Given her role is likely just for PR it seems rather foolish not to at least give her two weeks notice or something.

[yulaow]

In her group email she also asked other employees to stop working in any other related project.

I mean, I don't see how google could NOT terminate her after such an event. I am in a nation with extremly strong worker protection law but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.

[tinalumfoil]

Reading the comments here I feel like HN lives in a completely parallel universe. The number of employees who have the ability to threaten to quit and not immediately get fired are very very few. Even at the executive level you can't just make ultimatums for your employment and expect that they won't consider just firing you. Even if you're the representative of a union speaking on behalf of thousands of employees you need make sure you have enough leverage before making demands like that.

This not some crazy conspiracy that she got fired. It would be noteworthy if someone who did what she did didn't get fired.

[beisner]

The reality is that the research organizations at big tech companies have always been a very different kind of labor relationship than typical rank-and-file business units. Many of the senior or otherwise high-profile researchers at FAANG companies would otherwise be professors or academics, in positions where there is essentially unbridled academic freedom and no expectation of separating personal convictions and principles from the academic environment.

Google lured many of these researchers away from academic roles, with the tacit promise that they would be able to continue their research - and at times political - endeavors relatively unencumbered. Google has built a research empire on this promise, which has been responsible in part for their continued dominance in various markets.

My point here is that these researchers have a lot of leverage. Advocating for action within an organization, counter to the current immediate goals of management, is only taboo (and thus “fireable”) in most companies because workers have almost no leverage, generally speaking. Not because it’s some inherently “bad” thing. If Google becomes seen as a place that fires researchers for advocating for their beliefs, especially in a capacity that they’ve been explicitly hired to do, then I think a lot of researchers would - and rightly should - reconsider whether such an environment is consistent with their values as academics and, often times, activists. Google’s research group is enormously valuable to the company, and there’s only so much reputational damage of this nature the organization can sustain before academics decide to take their talents elsewhere.

[romanoderoma]

> with extremly strong worker protection law

Serious question: what makes them strong if employers can't organize a simple strike?

[yulaow]

You can organize a strike BUT this is absolutely not the way you do it.

You have to follow strict procedures, work with your union and go into one or more formal negotiating tables with all the representatives of all the interested parts before even thinking about giving an ultimatum like that. And for sure you cannot communicate in that way using directly your work email

[romanoderoma]

But can you or can't you be fired for that?

Because in my country you can't be fired for using the work email for that.

Communicating with other workers using their work email is absolutely allowed, courts ruled about it several times [1].

I usually receive trade unions (there are several of them) communications on my work email from the unions' work email, because they have been authorized by the company to send them.

In this case she wrote directly to workers using work email, but having no union or labor protection laws it doesn't make any difference whether she could or couldn't, she could be fired anyway without having to provide any reason.

In countries where there are strong laws protecting workers she would have written to the union members and they would have done the same thing: write directly to the workers.

Of course she did it at Google so it is different, but here the strict procedures to call a strike are only necessary if a public service that requires continuity risk to be interrupted, otherwise unions are only required to alert the company that the strike is going to happen, but have no requirement whatsoever on how to organise it.

Which sound logical to me,strong protection means IMO freedom to collectively counter the actions of the company, if that's not allowed the protection is not strong.

[1] Court of Catania, Labor Section, February 2, 2009 "The RSU employee can send trade union communications by e-mail to the employees of the company during their working hours and to their company e-mail address using his personal e-mail address"

[thu2111]

In many countries you do need a vote for a strike to be organised. You can't just spam people with a request to stop working. Strikes are a powerful tactic that have evolved a lot of formality around them to try and ensure the outcomes aren't totally destructive. Italy is a rather unusual exception to this. Perhaps it's a contributing factor to the long stagnation of the Italian economy.

[lostjohnny]

> but that action alone would be enough to fire you on the spot.

They are not as strong as you think then.

In countries where there are strong work protections law striking is a right, you don't get paid for the time you don't show up at work but you can obviously convince an entire department or an entire company workforce to go on strike, without consequences.

Without it the protection is not strong, it means an entire company against the individual worker, which is obviously unfair (regardless of what you think about work protections law, Google against a single human being it's an unfair battle, that's why "strong protection" means that the worker deson't have to fight alone and can call other workers to join the fight).

[yulaow]

As I said in another sibling post, you cannot strike that way. You have to follow procedures to organize a legit strike.

If I wrote an email like that not only my union would not protect me, they would most probably tell me the employer took the right decision because I put at risk other employees positions (if they followed my reccomandations to stop working just because I said it)

[pontus]

You can't hand in your resignation effective at a future date. That's not how it works. If you resign, you resign. It's then up to the employer whether or not to hold you to whatever notice period is set out in your contract. Many places will not do so and release you effective immediately.

Of course, if you leave on good terms, your superiors might look at you kindly and work with you to meet not just their needs, but also your needs. That's why it pays to be humble and generous in your interactions with other people.

[iab]

I think that would have been the civilized thing to do. But that is the exception, not the rule in the bay; I.e once you have made your intentions known, and are perceived as someone who could cause damage in the interim, you are out straight away. Feels like a natural consequence of at-will employment.

[peeters]

This isn't at all unusual when someone is quitting on bad terms, is it?

[telltruth]

If employee is found using company resources inappropriately (in this case, mailing list to rant) then you can't give that employee 2 weeks notice. Google will then have to consider possibility that she will abuse their mailing lists.

[zomglings]

Google has internal mailing lists dedicated solely to rants (and related discussions) and others on which rants are certainly well accepted.

Google exercises a subjective standard to determine whether or not an employee is using mailing lists inappropriately (e.g. James Damore).

Source: ex-google

[rafiki6]

This is par for the course at most companies with IP to protect. If you quit they just walk you out.

[krzyk]

In the US, in countries with more worker protections it is not. (unless they pay you for that 2-week, month, 3-month period when you aren't working for them, but they can't remove you from worker list).

[rafiki6]

Yes this is correct. The primary difference in at will employment is that I also am not required to give my employer notice, whereas in the countries you mentioned I am.

[romanoderoma]

That's not true.

You can as an employer walk away whenever you want, you just don't get the salary for the difference between the notice and when you left.

Example: if you have to give 30 days notice (very common in Italy) and leave on the spot, after your resignation have been accepted, you have to give the company the equivalent of 30 days of pay.

Which is exactly the money they should give you aniway if you stayed for the entire notice time.

But usually the employer and company find an agreement before coming to that.

[ystad]

What's the point of the two week notice in this case?

[chippy]

as I understand it, she was on vacation at the time

[refurb]

In California you get paid for accrued vacation when you are terminated. She's not out any money, so why keep her on as an employee while she's out?

[sam0x17]

She said "at a later date" leaving it up to her discretion. Google accepted a resignation that didn't exist, and will probably be liable for it in some way.

[claudeganon]

So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good. But if you tell your boss that they should do something or you’ll quit, this is bad and makes you unemployable.

You realize that this is just an argument that whoever is in a position of authority over you is right by virtue of having that authority?

[whynotminot]

> So if you don’t do what your boss says at a job, even if you disagree, your boss can fire you, and this is good.

Gonna take a quick guess you're still in undergrad.

Yes, this is literally how employment works. Your future boss's job will be to use your labor efficiently for the company. You may disagree with your boss on an assignment, in which case it would be wise to schedule some time and professionally discuss your concerns. Your boss may be persuaded, and good bosses will try their best, within reason, to keep their subordinates content with the work they're doing.

However, at the end of the day, the boss may disagree with your points and still require you to do the job as assigned. If you refuse, you will likely be fired. Note that you also have agency here: If you don't like the work the boss makes you do, and you feel like your concerns are consistently falling on deaf ears, you can quit.

[beisner]

Just because that is how the world works, doesn’t mean it has to be a that way (or should be that way).

[tertius]

It doesn't have to be no, but y s it should...

What is your proposal?

[rfrey]

Without commenting on the politics of this particular case, I think what you describe is built into the definition of "boss".

[claudeganon]

Not universally though. In countries with stronger labor protections and unions, you can’t just fire people for philosophical disagreements (not without those disputes being mediated anyway).

I don’t understand how we arrived at some conception of workplaces as little dictatorships, where bosses can treat people however they want and that’s somehow good or legitimate.

[tertius]

A boss controls the work that you, via a contract, agreed to do.

If you want out of the contract the boss cannot make you do the work. You have agency, they cannot threaten you with violence as a dictator could.

[metabagel]

Managers are supposed to exercise power on behalf of the company. In this case, it’s unclear whether the manager was exercising power in the best interests of the company or of himself.

In my opinion, might doesn’t make right. Managers aren’t de facto right purely by virtue of being a manager.

[tertius]

Really depends on your definition of right. Do you mean legally? Morally? Logically?

When it comes to who has the ability to steer subordinates, managers are always right. Except if their managers disagree...

[mpweiher]

Citizen of country with some of the strongest worker protections here: not over philosophical differences.

Very much so for refusing to do work assigned to you.

And it doesn't mean "bosses can treat people however they want". It means "you are employed to do a job, if you refuse to do that job, you are no longer employed"

[rafiki6]

As much as I support employment rights, you are paid by a company to do their bidding. If you don't like it start a company, but then you're just doing the bidding of the customer.

[claudeganon]

This is a uniquely American notion of employment. “Do my bidding or be done away with” is not the norm across countries with strong unions and worker protections.

[tertius]

No, this is not uniquely American. Which country are you from that doesn't require employees to act in a way as directed by the company that employs them?

[claudeganon]

Literally any country with strong laws protecting strikes and work stoppages? In many parts of Europe, I can convince my coworkers that our bosses are treating us unfairly, unsafely, etc, we can walk off the job and not get fired. I doubt any employer would want us to do that, so it would be entirely against their “direction.”

[thu2111]

Just to clarify, in many parts of Europe you cannot do that, you would need to be a recognised union and in many cases at least hold a vote of some sort, there would probably also be requirements around negotiations. You would also be restricted in what you do to people who refuse to join your strike.

The UK is an example of a European country with relatively tough union laws. The list of issues that it's legitimate to strike over is restricted, votes are required, the general secretary of the union must authorise the strike and so on. Strikes do happen of course but not because some random middle manager threw a hissy fit about feedback on a paper she wrote.

[tertius]

"Do my bidding" is different from "do my bidding being paid way below market rate" or "do my bidding and I don't care if that involves a high likelihood of losing a limb".

Also, "do my bidding" should be written as "do your job."

I'm from a country with strong labor protections (striking, 3 strike dismissal etc.), and you're moving the goalposts.

[miked85]

Giving ultimatums and threatening to quit generally isn't a good way to remain employed with any company.

[tantalor]

It's called "insubordination".

[romanoderoma]

Do Google employers work in barracks?

[_y5hn]

Is insubordination to have a different opinion, and then offer paths to agreement between professionals?

Is insubordination to represent your responsibility area, as Ethical AI Researcher?

Is insubordination to send an email in order to establish dialogue around matters of disagreement between professionals?

[jollofricepeas]

Good point. I think its important to leave a link to the paper here for HN. Please read it or at least its intro & conclusion.

https://gofile.io/d/WfcxoF

After reading, it seems very much in line with her role as an ethicist. She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets.

Its a bit sad that they attempted to censure such an innocuous paper that without malice states “there are risks to consider.”

[tertius]

> She merely states that there are various risks associated with processing large datasets.

What's the strongest argument against her "merely" doing this?

[_y5hn]

We haven't heard any arguments, only that management can do as they please when they don't like results of AI Ethics Research. We'll likely not get anything substantial, ever, either.

As I've stated in other post, this is very, very troublesome for AI and Google.

OTOH, Google has much emphasis on ethics in AI/ML otherwise. But the whole company, especially management, need to put actions in alignment with their words on this matter.

[jollofricepeas]

The strongest argument for Google is it not wanting people to know that there are risks, no?

The strongest argument for her not doing it is keeping her job vs maintaining her professional responsibility as an ethicist, no?

[ClumsyPilot]

> "would rather not work with people like this."

Her clout/skills/PR and her attitude are a package deal.

Google wants to use her for PR, but expects her to be a lapdog.

I conflicted about many things, but respect her for having backbone.

[Jabbles]

Do we have the email with the "ultimatum" in it? I think there's a world of difference between

"Do these things or I'm gone and taking my team with me"

and

"These things are so fundamental to my role as an ethical AI researcher that it's difficult to see myself doing this job without them"

IANAL, but I suspect a court would also interpret them differently.

And even so, Google likes to position itself as a nice employer, which listens to their employees' concerns. De-escalating the situation would have been nice - immediately terminating the concerned employee makes Google seem like another giant faceless emotionless multinational corporation (which it may well be).