Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by telltruth 2019 days ago
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.

6 comments

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.
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((

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.
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.

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.