Want to see the real deal?
More inside scoop? View in App
More inside scoop? View in App
blind
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
FOLLOWING
Industries
Job Groups
- Software Engineering
- Product Management
- Information Technology
- Data Science & Analytics
- Management Consulting
- Hardware Engineering
- Design
- Sales
- Security
- Investment Banking & Sell Side
- Marketing
- Private Equity & Buy Side
- Corporate Finance
- Supply Chain
- Business Development
- Human Resources
- Operations
- Legal
- Admin
- Customer Service
- Communications
Return to Office
Work From Home
COVID-19
Layoffs
Investments & Money
Work Visa
Housing
Referrals
Job Openings
Startups
Office Life
Mental Health
HR Issues
Blockchain & Crypto
Fitness & Nutrition
Travel
Health Care & Insurance
Tax
Hobbies & Entertainment
Working Parents
Food & Dining
IPO
Side Jobs
Show more
SUPPORT
FOLLOW US
DOWNLOAD THE APP:
We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here's what it says
comments
She should be fired regardless of skin color. Google really did a bad job. They shouldnβt keep her until now. They should have fired here earlier. Lots of smart people is waiting to take her position
This comment was deleted by original commenter.
"I live in the white house" levels of thin skin on display. It's one thing to ask for a paper to be held past Thanksgiving weekend for review, but it's essentially a harmless raindrop.
There are dozens of these papers drawing their bow at minor foibles in AI published every day by publish or perish academics.
Regardless of your opinion on the tech or the people involved, the Google leadership team has basically lit a Streisand effect bonfire over *nothing*.
While the article gives a gist , I am curious about - what made Google so antsy about this paper considering there are dozens of similar papers on AI Ethics and bias being published everyday.
They wanted to be seen as supporting ethical AI, but raising reasons for them to not accelerate the deployment of their models because of flaws impacts the $$$ so it's unacceptable.
The paper I imagine wasn't the issue in of itself it's the fact Google realised it was funding its detractors. Someone read the paper and went wtf we're paying someone money to delay the $$$ from our NLP edge.
ATM Google's lead in NLP is one of its core competitive advantages, esp when search growth has stalled and GCP is fighting hard for second place. It wants to build a moat and find the next pit of gold, this is adjacent to that.