anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger's comments
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: Ethical AI researcher Timnit Gebru fired from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
People invested in identity politics are, by their own admission, interested in outcomes. In this world view, the legal system is a tool for achieving the desired outcomes. The same set of rules can be illegal if it rejects certain identities in a context, and at the same time legal if it promotes those identities in a different context. 'Heads I win, tails you lose', but dead serious.
A thread discussing the pervasive 'women and minorities encouraged' mindset is in western academia:
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/95011/is-it-con...
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
anonvenger | 5 years ago | on: AI researcher Timnit Gebru resigns from Google
> Timnit co-authored a paper with four fellow Googlers as well as some external collaborators that needed to go through our review process (as is the case with all externally submitted papers). We’ve approved dozens of papers that Timnit and/or the other Googlers have authored and then published, but as you know, papers often require changes during the internal review process (or are even deemed unsuitable for submission). 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.
> A cross functional team then reviewed the paper as part of our regular process and the authors were informed that it didn’t meet our bar for publication and were given feedback about why. It ignored too much relevant research — for example, it talked about the environmental impact of large models, but disregarded subsequent research showing much greater efficiencies. Similarly, it raised concerns about bias in language models, but didn’t take into account recent research to mitigate these issues. We acknowledge that the authors were extremely disappointed with the decision that Megan and I ultimately made, especially as they’d already submitted the paper.
> 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. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google.