Posted on 12/03/2020 8:06:14 PM PST by DUMBGRUNT
She said she was terminated over an email sent to an internal company group. Gebru's reports were told she offered her resignation, but management jumped the gun, Gebru said.
In that email, Gebru aired frustrations that senior managers had asked her to retract the paper without providing more reasons as to why. She used her experience to talk more broadly about Google's treatment of minority workers. "There is no way more documents or more conversations will achieve anything," she said.
"However, we believe the end of your employment should happen faster than your email reflects because certain aspects of the email you sent last night to non-management employees in the brain group reflect behavior that is inconsistent with the expectations of a Google manager.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
George Orwell
Keeping that quote handy on my desktop. Thanks!
Mention of this paper Google wanted her to retract, haven’t seen what was SO horroble that woke Google got rid of their woke AI mangler.
Leading AI researcher complains about lack of minority workers... where to begin...
“retaliation” is a dogwhistle. It suggests that there is something nefarious going on, something that does not comply with laws. Trashing your bosses because they made a decision you didn’t like is dumb and just because you are a black woman doens’t mean you can bitch about how you deserve to have your ass kissed at all moments and how pissed you are that they didn’t and expect there to be no consequences. Even SJW black chicks are allowed to be fired as long as it’s another SJW female delivering the news (which it was).
“Gebru has become a renowned figure in the ethical-AI space whose work has explored algorithmic bias and the implications of data mining. Gebru also cofounded Black in AI, a collaborative community working to increase the number of Black people working in artificial intelligence.”
Was she a real tech worker or a blacktivist token? Can’t tell...
I tried to read the article (contrary to FR tradition) and still can’t figure out WTF is the issue here. The journo who wrote this should be demoted to cleaning up the coffee area.
I read it as well (granted, I usually don’t, but I really wanted to understand it better); all I can gather is that she put something out there to other employees that the company wanted removed.
She is not a leading AI researcher if she is focusing her efforts on diversity issues.
More here:
“Google Head of AI Jeff Dean, in an internal email, told staff that an internal team determined that Ms. Gebru’s most recent AI research was insufficiently rigorous. He also said she encouraged colleagues not to participate in Google’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and that he was disappointed about that.”
Ms. Gebru held skeptical views on artificial intelligence that were unusual inside Google, according to people who know her. She was an outspoken critic of tools used by law enforcement to predict and prevent crimes, having said she found that they discriminated against darker-skinned people. For example, she published widely disseminated research showing that facial recognition algorithms are more likely to misidentify people of color.
Ms. Gebru also said in her email that she hired attorneys last year who threatened legal action against Google. In the email, Ms. Gebru wrote that she received an “impact award” from Google the day after her lawyers contacted the company. “Pure gaslighting,” she wrote.
I read the linked articles, Timnit’s email to the internal Google group, and Jeff Dean’s response to Timnit’s firing.
My summary of the events:
1. Timnit sent a paper to be published in a journal prior to getting it approved by Google, which is against company ploicy.
2. Once the Google team had reviewed the article, they said it was full of inconsistencies and errors and should not be published.
3. When Google told Timnit the paper should not be published, she through a fit and requested the names of every individual who reviewed the papar. Google would not provide her with this info.
4. Then Timnit, being very emotional, wrote a rather skathing email to the internal Google group alleging many biases of top management.
In my opinion, Timnit violated numerous Google company policies, and Google was within their right to fire her. She blames management of being biased against Blacks and women, and, comes across, as having a HUGE chip on her shoulder to put it mildly.
“...Timnit violated numerous Google company policies, and Google was within their right to fire her. She blames management of being biased against Blacks and women, and, comes across, as having a HUGE chip on her shoulder to put it mildly.”
Clearly.
With 120K employees Google will have all kinds of them.
Now the question is, where she goes from here?
Been around a bit?
“Prior to that I did a postdoc at Microsoft Research, New York City in the FATE (Fairness Transparency Accountability and Ethics in AI) “
https://ai.stanford.edu/~tgebru/
I am an entrepreneur who loves to work independently and continuously improve my technical skills. I have over 6 years of experience at Apple designing algorithms, analog and digital circuits and working on DSP related projects. I also have software experience through taking AI, machine learning and computer vision classes at Stanford as well as working on various personal projects.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/timnit-gebru-7b3b407
Thanks for sharing; sounds like she was living the typical token experience. For example, my boss would say my work was poor instead of “insufficiently rigorous”. The “impact award” was as meaningless as her position there, which sounds like it was just a slot so Google could pretend enough preferred minorities were qualified to work in the tech field. In other companies, she would have been the “Chief Diversity Officer”...
Rathervthin resume
Rather thin resume
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.